17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity of Peripheral Oxygen Saturation Measurements with the Garmin Fēnix® 5X Plus Wearable Device at 4559 m

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Decreased oxygen saturation (SO2) at high altitude is associated with potentially life-threatening diseases, e.g., high-altitude pulmonary edema. Wearable devices that allow continuous monitoring of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), such as the Garmin Fēnix® 5X Plus (GAR), might provide early detection to prevent hypoxia-induced diseases. We therefore aimed to validate GAR-derived SpO2 readings at 4559 m. SpO2 was measured with GAR and the medically certified Covidien Nellcor SpO2 monitor (COV) at six time points in 13 healthy lowlanders after a rapid ascent from 1130 m to 4559 m. Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis served as the criterion measure and was conducted at four of the six time points with the Radiometer ABL 90 Flex. Validity was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and Bland–Altman plots. Mean (±SD) SO2, including all time points at 4559 m, was 85.2 ± 6.2% with GAR, 81.0 ± 9.4% with COV, and 75.0 ± 9.5% with ABG. Validity of GAR was low, as indicated by the ICC (0.549), the MAPE (9.77%), the mean SO2 difference (7.0%), and the wide limits of agreement (−6.5; 20.5%) vs. ABG. Validity of COV was good, as indicated by the ICC (0.883), the MAPE (6.15%), and the mean SO2 difference (0.1%) vs. ABG. The GAR device demonstrated poor validity and cannot be recommended for monitoring SpO2 at high altitude.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

              Background Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. Methods We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. Results We included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. Conclusions Commercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                SENSC9
                Sensors
                Sensors
                MDPI AG
                1424-8220
                October 2021
                September 23 2021
                : 21
                : 19
                : 6363
                Article
                10.3390/s21196363
                34640680
                84704b6e-79a8-4a36-904f-5f79f99532e0
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article