@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/10338，作者=“Reddy, Ravi Kondama和Pooni, Rubin和Zaharieva, Dessi P和Senf, Brian和El Youssef, Joseph和Dassau, Eyal和Doyle III, Francis J和Clements, Mark A和ricels, Michael R和Patton, Susana R和Castle, Jessica R和Riddell, Michael C和Jacobs, Peter G”，标题=“在常见的日常体育活动和结构运动类型中腕带活动监测的准确性:“评价研究”，期刊=“JMIR移动健康Uhealth”，年=“2018”，月=“12”，日=“10”，卷=“6”，号=“12”，页=“e10338”，关键词=“心率;能量代谢;健身追踪;高强度间歇训练;背景:腕带活动监测器经常用于监测心率(HR)和能量消耗(EE)在各种环境中，包括最近在医疗应用中。使用实时生理信号来通知医疗系统，包括药物输送系统和决策支持系统，将取决于被测量信号的准确性，包括HR和EE的准确性。之前的研究仅评估了可穿戴设备在稳态有氧运动中的准确性。目的:本研究的目的是验证两种常见腕带设备在各种动态活动期间的HR和EE的准确性，这些动态活动代表了与日常生活相关的各种身体活动，包括有组织的锻炼。方法:我们评估了两种常用腕带设备(Fitbit Charge 2和Garmin v{\'i}vosmart HR+)在动态活动时HR和EE的准确性。 Over a 2-day period, 20 healthy adults (age: mean 27.5 [SD 6.0] years; body mass index: mean 22.5 [SD 2.3] kg/m2; 11 females) performed a maximal oxygen uptake test, free-weight resistance circuit, interval training session, and activities of daily living. Validity was assessed using an HR chest strap (Polar) and portable indirect calorimetry (Cosmed). Accuracy of the commercial wearables versus research-grade standards was determined using Bland-Altman analysis, correlational analysis, and error bias. Results: Fitbit and Garmin were reasonably accurate at measuring HR but with an overall negative bias. There was more error observed during high-intensity activities when there was a lack of repetitive wrist motion and when the exercise mode indicator was not used. The Garmin estimated HR with a mean relative error (RE, {\%}) of −3.3{\%} (SD 16.7), whereas Fitbit estimated HR with an RE of −4.7{\%} (SD 19.6) across all activities. The highest error was observed during high-intensity intervals on bike (Fitbit: −11.4{\%} [SD 35.7]; Garmin: −14.3{\%} [SD 20.5]) and lowest error during high-intensity intervals on treadmill (Fitbit: −1.7{\%} [SD 11.5]; Garmin: −0.5{\%} [SD 9.4]). Fitbit and Garmin EE estimates differed significantly, with Garmin having less negative bias (Fitbit: −19.3{\%} [SD 28.9], Garmin: −1.6{\%} [SD 30.6], P<.001) across all activities, and with both correlating poorly with indirect calorimetry measures. Conclusions: Two common wrist-worn devices (Fitbit Charge 2 and Garmin v{\'i}vosmart HR+) show good HR accuracy, with a small negative bias, and reasonable EE estimates during low to moderate-intensity exercise and during a variety of common daily activities and exercise. Accuracy was compromised markedly when the activity indicator was not used on the watch or when activities involving less wrist motion such as cycle ergometry were done. ", issn="2291-5222", doi="10.2196/10338", url="https://mhealth.www.mybigtv.com/2018/12/e10338/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/10338", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30530451" }