Fitbit充电测量心率和活动的仪器间可靠性和一致性在休息时,在改良的加拿大有氧体能测试期间,在恢复。

G. Nazari, J. Macdermid, K. Sinden, J. Richardson, A. Tang
{"title":"Fitbit充电测量心率和活动的仪器间可靠性和一致性在休息时,在改良的加拿大有氧体能测试期间,在恢复。","authors":"G. Nazari, J. Macdermid, K. Sinden, J. Richardson, A. Tang","doi":"10.3138/PTC.2018-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: We determined the inter-instrument reliability and agreement parameters of the Fitbit Charge Heart Rate (Charge HR) device during three phases: rest, modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT), and recovery. Method: We recruited 60 participants for this cross-sectional measurement study using convenience and snowball sampling approaches. The performance of the Charge HR was assessed throughout the rest, mCAFT, and recovery phases. To establish inter-instrument reliability, the Charge HR variables - heart rate, steps taken, and energy expenditures - were compared with those for two other devices: the Zephyr BioHarness (ZB) for heart rate and the Fitbit One for steps taken and energy expenditure. Measurements were recorded every 30 seconds. Results: At rest, the inter-instrument intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (standard error of measurement [SEM]) for the Charge HR versus the ZB was ≥ 0.97 (range, min-max, 1.02-1.32). During the mCAFT and in recovery, the ICCs (SEMs) for the Charge HR and the ZB were ≥ 0.89 (range, min-max, 1.30-3.98) and ≥ 0.68 (range, min-max, 3.58-8.35), respectively. During the mCAFT only, the number of steps taken and the energy expenditure recorded by the Charge HR and the Fitbit One displayed ICCs (SEMs) of 0.97 (83.00) and 0.77 (14.70), respectively. The average agreement differences in heart rate in this pair-wise device comparison indicated mean differences of -0.20, 4.00, and 1.00 beats per minute at rest, during the mCAFT, and in recovery, respectively. Conclusions: The Charge HR heart rate variable demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability compared with the ZB and provided good levels of agreement. The steps taken and energy expenditure variables displayed excellent reliability measures between Charge HR and Fitbit One. Our findings may be used to capture field-based wireless measures of heart rate in various phases and provide information about possibly using the Charge HR and ZB devices interchangeably.","PeriodicalId":390485,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-Instrument Reliability and Agreement of Fitbit Charge Measurements of Heart Rate and Activity at Rest, during the Modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test, and in Recovery.\",\"authors\":\"G. Nazari, J. Macdermid, K. Sinden, J. Richardson, A. Tang\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/PTC.2018-25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: We determined the inter-instrument reliability and agreement parameters of the Fitbit Charge Heart Rate (Charge HR) device during three phases: rest, modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT), and recovery. Method: We recruited 60 participants for this cross-sectional measurement study using convenience and snowball sampling approaches. The performance of the Charge HR was assessed throughout the rest, mCAFT, and recovery phases. To establish inter-instrument reliability, the Charge HR variables - heart rate, steps taken, and energy expenditures - were compared with those for two other devices: the Zephyr BioHarness (ZB) for heart rate and the Fitbit One for steps taken and energy expenditure. Measurements were recorded every 30 seconds. Results: At rest, the inter-instrument intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (standard error of measurement [SEM]) for the Charge HR versus the ZB was ≥ 0.97 (range, min-max, 1.02-1.32). During the mCAFT and in recovery, the ICCs (SEMs) for the Charge HR and the ZB were ≥ 0.89 (range, min-max, 1.30-3.98) and ≥ 0.68 (range, min-max, 3.58-8.35), respectively. During the mCAFT only, the number of steps taken and the energy expenditure recorded by the Charge HR and the Fitbit One displayed ICCs (SEMs) of 0.97 (83.00) and 0.77 (14.70), respectively. The average agreement differences in heart rate in this pair-wise device comparison indicated mean differences of -0.20, 4.00, and 1.00 beats per minute at rest, during the mCAFT, and in recovery, respectively. Conclusions: The Charge HR heart rate variable demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability compared with the ZB and provided good levels of agreement. The steps taken and energy expenditure variables displayed excellent reliability measures between Charge HR and Fitbit One. Our findings may be used to capture field-based wireless measures of heart rate in various phases and provide information about possibly using the Charge HR and ZB devices interchangeably.\",\"PeriodicalId\":390485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/PTC.2018-25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/PTC.2018-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

目的:我们确定Fitbit充电心率(Charge HR)装置在休息、改良加拿大有氧体能测试(mCAFT)和恢复三个阶段的仪器间可靠性和一致性参数。方法:采用方便抽样法和滚雪球抽样法对60名被试进行横断面测量研究。在休息、mCAFT和恢复阶段对Charge HR的性能进行评估。为了建立仪器间的可靠性,将Charge HR变量——心率、采取的步数和能量消耗——与另外两种设备的变量进行比较:Zephyr BioHarness (ZB)用于心率,Fitbit One用于步数和能量消耗。每30秒记录一次测量值。结果:静息时,Charge HR与ZB的仪器间类内相关系数(ICC)(测量标准误差[SEM])≥0.97(范围,min-max, 1.02-1.32)。在mCAFT和恢复期间,电荷HR和ZB的ICCs (SEMs)分别≥0.89(范围,min-max, 1.30 ~ 3.98)和≥0.68(范围,min-max, 3.58 ~ 8.35)。仅在mCAFT期间,Charge HR和Fitbit One记录的步数和能量消耗显示的ICCs (sem)分别为0.97(83.00)和0.77(14.70)。在这种两两设备比较中,心率的平均一致性差异表明,休息时、mCAFT期间和恢复时的平均差异分别为-0.20、4.00和1.00次/分钟。结论:与ZB相比,Charge HR心率变量表现出良好的仪器间可靠性,并提供了良好的一致性。采取的步骤和能量消耗变量在Charge HR和Fitbit One之间显示了出色的可靠性措施。我们的研究结果可用于捕获不同阶段的基于现场的无线心率测量,并提供可能交替使用Charge HR和ZB设备的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inter-Instrument Reliability and Agreement of Fitbit Charge Measurements of Heart Rate and Activity at Rest, during the Modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test, and in Recovery.
Purpose: We determined the inter-instrument reliability and agreement parameters of the Fitbit Charge Heart Rate (Charge HR) device during three phases: rest, modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT), and recovery. Method: We recruited 60 participants for this cross-sectional measurement study using convenience and snowball sampling approaches. The performance of the Charge HR was assessed throughout the rest, mCAFT, and recovery phases. To establish inter-instrument reliability, the Charge HR variables - heart rate, steps taken, and energy expenditures - were compared with those for two other devices: the Zephyr BioHarness (ZB) for heart rate and the Fitbit One for steps taken and energy expenditure. Measurements were recorded every 30 seconds. Results: At rest, the inter-instrument intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (standard error of measurement [SEM]) for the Charge HR versus the ZB was ≥ 0.97 (range, min-max, 1.02-1.32). During the mCAFT and in recovery, the ICCs (SEMs) for the Charge HR and the ZB were ≥ 0.89 (range, min-max, 1.30-3.98) and ≥ 0.68 (range, min-max, 3.58-8.35), respectively. During the mCAFT only, the number of steps taken and the energy expenditure recorded by the Charge HR and the Fitbit One displayed ICCs (SEMs) of 0.97 (83.00) and 0.77 (14.70), respectively. The average agreement differences in heart rate in this pair-wise device comparison indicated mean differences of -0.20, 4.00, and 1.00 beats per minute at rest, during the mCAFT, and in recovery, respectively. Conclusions: The Charge HR heart rate variable demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability compared with the ZB and provided good levels of agreement. The steps taken and energy expenditure variables displayed excellent reliability measures between Charge HR and Fitbit One. Our findings may be used to capture field-based wireless measures of heart rate in various phases and provide information about possibly using the Charge HR and ZB devices interchangeably.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信