ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Advancement in wrist worn physical activity trackers: technological developments and measurement accuracy: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wrist-worn physical activity trackers have advanced rapidly over the past two decades, evolving from simple accelerometer-based devices to multi-sensor systems integrating photoplethysmography, advanced movement classification, and machine-learning algorithms. Despite widespread use in both research and clinical settings, concerns remain regarding the accuracy and reliability of key metrics such as heart rate, energy expenditure, step count, and activity intensity. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024551740). MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus were searched for studies evaluating the accuracy or acceptability of wrist-worn activity trackers in laboratory or free-living-simulated conditions. Eligible studies included healthy or general-population samples using any wrist-worn consumer or research-grade device. Reference standards included ECG, indirect calorimetry, doubly labelled water, manual step counting, and research-grade accelerometry. Of 1,659 records identified, 47 studies met inclusion criteria. Results and discussion: Accuracy improved substantially over time, although variability across brands, activities, and populations persisted. Early heart-rate monitors (pre-2010) frequently reported Pearson correlation coefficient as low as 0.50 during exercise, while still being under the validity standard (0.90) at rest. Modern devices such as Apple Watch and Garm
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.