Article open access publication

Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I

Sensors, MDPI, ISSN 1424-8239

Volume 17, 1, 2017

DOI:10.3390/s17010211, Dimensions: pub.1053908608, PMC: PMC5298782, PMID: 28117736,


Leth, Soren * (1)

* Corresponding author



  1. (1) Aalborg University, grid.5117.2, AAU
  2. (2) Bispebjerg Hospital, grid.411702.1, Capital Region






Commercial self-monitoring devices are becoming increasingly popular, and over the last decade, the use of self-monitoring technology has spread widely in both consumer and medical markets. The purpose of this study was to evaluate five commercially available self-monitoring devices for further testing in clinical applications. Four activity trackers and one sleep tracker were evaluated based on step count validity and heart rate validity. METHODS: The study enrolled 22 healthy volunteers in a walking test. Volunteers walked a 100 m track at 2 km/h and 3.5 km/h. Steps were measured by four activity trackers and compared to gyroscope readings. Two trackers were also tested on nine subjects by comparing pulse readings to Holter monitoring. RESULTS: The lowest average systematic error in the walking tests was -0.2%, recorded on the Garmin Vivofit 2 at 3.5 km/h; the highest error was the Fitbit Charge HR at 2 km/h with an error margin of 26.8%. Comparisons of pulse measurements from the Fitbit Charge HR revealed a margin error of -3.42% ± 7.99% compared to the electrocardiogram. The Beddit sleep tracker measured a systematic error of -3.27% ± 4.60%. CONCLUSION: The measured results revealed the current functionality and limitations of the five self-tracking devices, and point towards a need for future research in this area.

Links & Metrics

NORA University Profiles

Aalborg University

Danish Open Access Indicator

2017: Realized

Research area: Medicine

Danish Bibliometrics Indicator

2017: Level 2

Research area: Medicine

Dimensions Citation Indicators

Times Cited: 50

Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 15.27

Relative Citation ratio (RCR): 4.06

Open Access Info

Pure Gold