JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

With advancements in information technology and the rapid development of wearable technology, continuous physiological monitoring has become simple and comfortable through miniature sensing devices. Commercially available wearable devices mostly use photoplethysmography (PPG) to collect physiological information by illuminating the skin with light-emitting diodes and then measuring the amount of transmitted or reflected light with photodiodes to obtain data on pulse pressure-induced volumetric variations in blood circulation.

Objective:

The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of heart rate monitoring between chest straps and wearable wristbands.

Methods:

In this study, heart rate and acceleration data were collected through the Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband developed by Mobile Action Technology Inc. To compare the accuracy and reliability between the standard measuring device (Zephyr™ Bioharness) and the smart wristband (Q-Band Q-69, the test device), Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC), and intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) (using a single-measure, two-way mixed mode and absolute consistency) were used to interpret the reliability test results.

Results:

For this study, volunteers were recruited from a medical school in northern Taiwan from January 1, 2021, to June 31, 2021. The Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband showed a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 10.94 (12.31) for running, a MAPE value of 13.35 (13.47) for women in the running state, a MAPE value of 10.65 (16.55) for men in the walking state, and a MAPE below 10% for any of the other states.

Conclusions:

The measurement accuracy of the wristband differed by sex and decreased significantly during the running state. Under some unknown conditions, the wristband produced extreme erroneous records. These results indicate that users should be cautious about the performance of smart wristbands in monitoring exercise.