ArticlePeerJ2026
Why your smartwatch may be misleading your doctor: a cross-sectional study on the impact of mobility aids on wearable accuracy in older adults.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wrist-worn wearables like the Apple Watch are widely used to monitor physical activity in both clinical and home settings. But what happens when an middle-aged to older adults walks with a rolling walker or pushes an oxygen cart? This study shows that such devices dramatically impair step detection, leading to significant undercounting and potential clinical misinterpretation. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a wrist-worn device (Apple Watch Series 8) and a waist-mounted device (Omron Walking Style IV) in middle-aged to older adults using common assistive walking aids. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, 42 community-dwelling middle-aged to older adults (aged 51-80) performed walking tasks under four assisted conditions (forearm crutch, rolling walker, oxygen trolley, and unassisted) and three treadmill speeds (1.61, 3.22, and 4.83 km/h). Step counts and distances recorded by each wearable device were compared to manual reference measures. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Bland-Altman analyses assessed accuracy and agreement. Results: The Apple Watch significantly underestimated step counts, particularly with a rolling walker (-36.4%, Conclusion: Wrist-worn activity monitors may be unsuitable for middle-aged to older adults using assistive devices due to undercounting. Waist-mounted devices offer more reliable step and distance tracking, supporting their use in clinical practice and home rehabilitation. Device selection and placement should be carefully considered in mobility-impaired populations.
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.