Accuracy and Metrological Characteristics of Wearable Devices: A Systematic Review

  • Gloria Cosoli
  • Lorenzo ScaliseEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 539)


The aim of this paper is to study the state of the art about the metrological characteristics and the accuracy of wearable devices, tested in comparison to a gold standard instrument. A bibliographic research has been made on the main scientific databases (e.g. Scopus and Web of Science). Papers have been included on the basis of established criteria (e.g. the wearable device has to be commercial). At present, neither a standard protocol nor fixed metrological characteristics can be identified in the literature. Among the most discussed wearable devices, there are certainly Fitbit, Jawbone, Garmin and Polar ones. Chest-strap monitors generally result to be more accurate than wrist-worn devices, which, on the other hand, are cheaper and more comfortable. Given the lack of standards in the validation process, the data appear to be very irregular (even among studies conducted on the same device) and consequently barely comparable. It would be extremely important to conduct a pilot study on a few devices, validating them according to an established test protocol and comparing the results to a gold reference instrument (e.g. ECG for Heart Rate assessment). In this way, it would be possible to start building a database of the accuracy and the metrological characteristics of wearable devices.


Wearable devices Health monitoring Physiological parameters Metrological characteristics Measurement accuracy 


  1. 1.
    Haskell, W.L., et al.: Physical Activity and Public Health. Updated Recommendation for Adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation, Ago (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katzmarzyk, P.T.: Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and health: paradigm paralysis or paradigm shift? Diabetes 59(11), 2717–2725 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Remoortel, H., et al.: Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 9, 84 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurti, A., Dallery, J.: Internet-based contingency management increases walking in sedentary adults. PubMed—NCBI (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naslund, J.A., et al.: Feasibility of popular m-health technologies for activity tracking among individuals with serious mental illness. Telemed. J. E-Health Off. J. Am. Telemed. Assoc. 21(3), 213–216 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hallman, D.M., et al.: Prolonged sitting is associated with attenuated heart rate variability during sleep in blue-collar workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 12(11), 14811–14827 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colditz, G.A.: Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31(11), S663–S667 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ford, E.S., Caspersen, C.J.: Sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease: a review of prospective studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 41(5), 1338–1353 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Owen, N., et al.: Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin. Proc. 85(12), 1138–1141 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tremblay, M.S., et al.: Physiological and health implications of a sedentary lifestyle. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Physiol. Appl. Nutr. Metab. 35(6), 725–740 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer, J., Hein, A.: Live long and prosper: potentials of low-cost consumer devices for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Medicine 20(2), e7 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piwek, L., Ellis, D.A., Andrews, S., Joinson, A.: The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLOS Med. 13(2), e1001953 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adam Noah, J., et al.: Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 37(7), 456–462 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dannecker, K.L., et al.: A comparison of energy expenditure estimation of several physical activity monitors. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 45(11), 2105–2112 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, J.-M., Kim, Y., Welk, G.J.: Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 46(9), 1840–1848 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wallen, M.P., et al.: Accuracy of heart rate watches: implications for weight management. PLoS ONE 11(5), e0154420 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ge, Z., et al.: Evaluating the accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors. In: 2016 2nd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication, Automation (ICACCA), pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glenn, K.: Wrist-worn Heart Rate Monitors Less Accurate Than Standard Chest Strap—American College of Cardiology (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lamkin, P.: Mio boss: Fitbit and Apple are getting heart rate monitoring wrong (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    El-Amrawy, F., Nounou, M.I.: Are currently available wearable devices for activity tracking and heart rate monitoring accurate, precise, and medically beneficial? Healthc. Inform. Res. 21(4), 315–320 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jo, E., et al.: Validation of biofeedback wearables for photoplethysmographic heart rate tracking. J. Sports Sci. Med. 15(3), 540–547 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stahl, S.E., et al.: How accurate are the wrist-based heart rate monitors during walking and running activities? Are they accurate enough? BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woodman, J., et al.: Accuracy of consumer monitors for estimating energy expenditure and activity type. PubMed—NCBI Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stackpool, C.M.: Accuracy of various activity trackers in estimating steps taken and energy expenditure (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dontje, M.L., et al.: Measuring steps with the Fitbit activity tracker: an inter-device reliability study. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 39(5), 286–290 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferguson, T., et al.: The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 12, 42 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Evenson, K.R., et al.: Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 12, 159 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diaz, K.M., et al.: Fitbit®: an accurate and reliable device for wireless physical activity tracking. Int. J. Cardiol. 185, 138–140 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bai, Y.: Comparison of consumer and research monitors under semistructured settings. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 48(1), 151–158 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reid, R., et al.: Validity and reliability of Fitbit activity monitors compared to ActiGraph GT3X+ with female adults in a free-living environment. J. Sci. Med. Sport (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prospero, M.: Who has the most accurate heart rate monitor?, Tom’s Guide, June 2016Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leth, S., et al.: Evaluation of commercial self-monitoring devices for clinical purposes: results from the future patient trial, Phase I. Sensors 17(1) (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Montgomery-Downs, H.E., Insana, S.P., Bond, J.A.: Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device. Sleep Breath. 16(3), 913–917 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parak, J., Korhonen, I.: Evaluation of wearable consumer heart rate monitors based on photopletysmography. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2014, 3670–3673 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polar | V800: Polar Italia (2017)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giles, D., Draper, N., Neil, W.: Validity of the Polar V800 heart rate monitor to measure RR intervals at rest. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 116, 563–571 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stables, J.: Heart rate monitors: chest straps v wrist. Wearable (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vanderlei, L.C.M., et al.: Comparison of the Polar S810i monitor and the ECG for the analysis of heart rate variability in the time and frequency domains. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. Rev. Bras. Pesqui. Medicas E Biol. 41(10), 854–859 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porto, L.G.G., Junqueira, L.F.: Comparison of time-domain short-term heart interval variability analysis using a wrist-worn heart rate monitor and the conventional electrocardiogram. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. PACE 32(1), 43–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gamelin, F.X., Berthoin, S., Bosquet, L.: Validity of the polar S810 heart rate monitor to measure R-R intervals at rest. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 38(5), 887–893 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Radespiel-Tröger, M., et al.: Agreement of two different methods for measurement of heart rate variability. Clin. Auton. Res. 13(2), 99–102 (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bouillod, A., et al.: Accuracy of the Suunto system for heart rate variability analysis during a tilt-test. Braz. J. Kinanthropometry Hum. Perform. 17(4), 409–417 (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    BIPM—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) (2017)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fallow, B.A., Tarumi, T., Tanaka, H.: Influence of skin type and wavelength on light wave reflectance. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 27(3), 313–317 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Takacs, J., et al.: Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking. J. Sci. Med. Sport 17(5), 496–500 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sawh, M.: BioRing. Wearable (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    ComfTech—Textile sensors (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical SciencesUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations