Views 109
Citations 0
Comment & Response
September 2016

Remaining Questions Concerning Wearable Devices

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Clinical Epidemiology & Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 2Division of Epidemiology and Occupational Health McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1408-1409. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4756

To the Editor In a study in a recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Murakami et al1 evaluated the performance of 12 wearable devices at measuring total energy expenditure (TEE) against 2 separate reference standards—metabolic chamber and doubly labeled water method. With both methods, they found all 12 wearables underestimated TEE with wide variability.1 Although variability in accuracy could be attributed to many factors (ie, use of best possible reference standards, use of healthy subjects for evaluation, placement of wearables [waist vs wrist], inherent inconsistencies during test days, varying metabolic rates, and lapses in device use from charging or performing activities restricting usage) some limitations of this evaluation include a very small sample size (n = 13) and a choice of populations studied. Regardless, the study is well designed and presents interesting findings.1

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview