ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024
Comparison of step-count outcomes across seven different activity trackers: a free-living experiment with young and older adults.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the role of digital health technologies in assessing functional mobility and physical activity: Insights from qualitative interviews in adults with obesity or overweight.Obesity pillars · 2025Article
- Time Series Analysis of Muscle Deformation During Physiotherapy Using Optical Wearable Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing Step-Counting Algorithms for High-Resolution Wrist Accelerometry Data in Older Adults in the ARIC Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of Omron and ActiGraph monitors in estimating daily step counts and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity in free-living adults.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2025Article
- Device-based measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour after critical illness: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are now many different types of activity trackers, including pedometers and accelerometers, to estimate step counts per day. Previous research has extensively examined step-count measurements using activity trackers across various settings while simultaneously wearing different devices.; however, older adults frequently display distinct walking patterns and gait speeds compared to younger adults. This study aimed to compare the step-count between older and younger adults by having them simultaneously wear seven different activity trackers in free-living experiments.
methodsThis study included 35 younger adults (21-43 yrs) and 57 physically independent older adults (65-91 yrs). All participants simultaneously wore one pedometer and six activity trackers: ActiGraph GT3X + Wrist and Hip, Omron Active Style Pro HJA-350IT, Panasonic Actimarker, TANITA EZ-064, Yamasa TH-300, and Yamasa AS-200 for seven days. A regression equation was also used to assess inter-device compatibility.
resultsWhen comparing wrist-worn ActiGraph to the six hip-worn activity trackers, the wrist-worn ActiGraph consistently recorded step counts over 4,000 steps higher than hip-worn activity trackers in both groups (range, 3000-5000 steps). Moreover, when comparing the ActiGraph worn on the wrist to that worn on the hip, the proportion was higher among older adults compared to younger ones (younger: 131%, older: 180%). The Actimarker recorded the highest average step counts among six hip-worn devices, with 8,569 ± 4,881 overall, 9,624 ± 5,177 for younger adults, and 7,890 ± 4,562 for older adults. The difference between the hip-worn ActiGraph and Active Style Pro was just about 70 steps/day overall. The correlation among all devices demonstrated a very high consistency, except for the wrist-worn ActiGraph (r = 0.874-0.978).
conclusionsStep counts recorded from seven selected consumer-based and research-grade activity trackers and one pedometer, except for the wrist-worn ActiGraph. showed a variation of approximately 1700 steps (range, 1265-2275 steps) steps for both groups, yet maintained a high correlation with each other. These findings will be valuable for researchers and clinicians as they compare step counts across different studies or representative surveys conducted globally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.