ArticleJMIR cancer2026
Monitoring Steps and Heart Rate Using a Withings Smartwatch in Children and Adolescents With Cancer: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consumer smartwatches offer potential for continuous monitoring of physical activity during childhood cancer treatment. However, their validity for measuring step count and heart rate in this population has not been established. Objective: This study examined the validity of a Withings smartwatch for monitoring step count and heart rate in children and adolescents undergoing cancer treatment. Methods: Children and adolescents aged 8 to 18 years under active cancer treatment wore a Withings smartwatch for 12 weeks. For validation purposes, children and adolescents simultaneously wore an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer for 1 week under free-living conditions to assess step count agreement and were connected to a clinical heart rate monitor under resting conditions to assess heart rate agreement. Linear mixed models with participant ID as a random effect were used to estimate mean differences and derive 95% limits of agreement for repeated measurements. Results: A total of 14 children and adolescents participated in each of the validation analyses. The smartwatch recorded significantly fewer steps than the ActiGraph accelerometer for both steps per hour (mean difference 174 steps per hour; 95% limits of agreement=-283 to 633; P<.001) and steps per day (mean difference 3154 steps per day; 95% limits of agreement=-394 to 6702; P<.001), with increasing discrepancy at higher activity levels, suggesting proportional bias. No statistically significant difference in heart rate was observed between the smartwatch and the clinical heart rate monitor under resting conditions (mean difference -1.07 beats per minute; 95% limits of agreement=-17.55 to 15.41; P=.24). Conclusions: In children and adolescents undergoing cancer treatment, the Withings smartwatch showed minimal systematic bias for resting heart rate assessment, although individual variability was considerable. In contrast, step counts demonstrated systematic underestimation and wide limits of agreement compared with a research-grade accelerometer. The use of smartwatch-derived step counts for clinical benchmarking or goal setting in this population cannot currently be recommended.
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.