ArticleJMIR cardio2026
Assessment of Wrist-Worn Activity Tracker Accuracy for Measuring Sedentary Behavior in Outpatients With Cardiovascular Disease: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR cardio, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wearable monitoring of sedentary behavior is increasingly used in digital cardiovascular care, but the validity of consumer-grade wrist-worn trackers in older patients with cardiac issues is unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between sedentary time measured by a consumer-grade wrist-worn tracker (Fitbit Inspire 3; Fitbit LLC) and a research-grade waist-worn accelerometer (ActiveStyle Pro HJA-750C; Omron Healthcare Co, Ltd) used as the comparator, in Japanese outpatients with cardiac issues under free-living conditions. Methods: Fifty-one outpatients with heart failure (28/51, 55%) or ischemic heart disease (23/51, 45%; mean age 78.4, SD 9.0 years; 25/51, 49% male) simultaneously wore both devices for 7 consecutive days. Sedentary time was assessed within a standardized 12-hour daytime window (9 AM to 9 PM) at 1-minute epochs. Agreement was examined using Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis (after confirming normality of the paired differences), Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Cohen kappa for distribution-based tertile classification. A constant bias correction was applied, with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) used as an internal-consistency check on the stability of the sample mean bias. Moderators of the bias were explored using multivariable regression. Results: Mean sedentary time within the 12-hour window was 497.9 (SD 86.5) minutes for the comparator and 559.9 (SD 84.3) minutes for the Fitbit. The devices were strongly correlated ( Conclusions: In older Japanese outpatients with cardiac issues, a consumer-grade wrist-worn tracker overestimated sedentary time by approximately 62 minutes within a standardized 12-hour daytime window compared with a waist-worn comparator, with fixed but no proportional bias. A simple constant correction markedly improved group-level concordance (cross-validated CCC≈0.90), supporting calibrated use of consumer wearables for scalable monitoring in ambulatory cardiac care. However, wide limits of agreement constrain individual-level precision, and the population-specific correction factor requires independent validation before transfer to other settings.
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.