Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39080098›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement.

Cailbhe Doherty, Maximus Baldwin, Alison Keogh, Brian Caulfield, Rob Argent

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The utility of bluetooth and smartphone technology to detect peer contact.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Accuracy of VOMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cailbhe DohertySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. cailbhe.doherty@ucd.ie.ORCID 0000-0002-5284-856X
Maximus BaldwinSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-0390-3956
Alison KeoghInsight SFI Research Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-5917-6308
Brian CaulfieldSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0290-9587
Rob ArgentInsight SFI Research Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3522-9409

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland 22/NCF/FD/10949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear.

objectiveTo conduct a 'living' (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes.

methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors' results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences.

resultsOf 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO

conclusionsWhile consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023402703.

Indexed as

ExerciseHeart RateSleepWearable Electronic DevicesFitness TrackersHumansReproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39080098
PMCPMC11560992

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.