Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Numerous wrist-wearable devices to measure physical activity are currently available, but there is a need to unify the evidence on how they compare in terms of acceptability and accuracy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the accuracy and acceptability (willingness to use the device for the task it is designed to support) of wrist-wearable activity trackers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus for studies measuring physical activity in the general population using wrist-wearable activity trackers. We screened articles for inclusion and, for the included studies, reported data on the studies' setting and population, outcome measured, and risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 65 articles were included in our review. Accuracy was assessed for 14 different outcomes, which can be classified in the following categories: count of specific activities (including step counts), time spent being active, intensity of physical activity (including energy expenditure), heart rate, distance, and speed. Substantial clinical heterogeneity did not allow us to perform a meta-analysis of the results. The outcomes assessed most frequently were step counts, heart rate, and energy expenditure. For step counts, the Fitbit Charge (or the Fitbit Charge HR) had a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) <25% across 20 studies. For heart rate, the Apple Watch had a MAPE <10% in 2 studies. For energy expenditure, the MAPE was >30% for all the brands, showing poor accuracy across devices. Acceptability was most frequently measured through data availability and wearing time. Data availability was ≥75% for the Fitbit Charge HR, Fitbit Flex 2, and Garmin Vivofit. The wearing time was 89% for both the GENEActiv and Nike FuelBand. CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR were consistently shown to have a good accuracy for step counts and the Apple Watch for measuring heart rate. None of the tested devices proved to be accurate in measuring energy expenditure. Efforts should be made to reduce the heterogeneity among studies.

Risk factors for bleeding in people living with hemophilia A and B treated with regular prophylaxis: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the risk for bleeding in patients with hemophilia (PWH) would be relevant for patients, stakeholders, and policy makers. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the literature on risk assessment models (RAMs) and risk factors for bleeding in PWH on regular prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception through August 2019. In duplicate, reviewers screened the articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk for bias using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. A qualitative synthesis of the results was not performed due to high heterogeneity in risk factors, outcomes definition and measurement, and statistical analysis of the results. RESULTS: From 1843 search results, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. No RAM for the risk for bleeding in PWH was found. Most studies included only PWH A or both PWH A and B and were conducted in North America or Europe. Only one study had a low risk for bias in all the domains. Eight categories of risk factors were identified. The risk for bleeding was increased when factor levels were lower and in people with a significant history of bleeding or who engaged in physical activities involving contact. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that plasma factor levels, history of bleeds, and physical activity should be considered for the derivation analysis when building a RAM for bleeding in PWH, and the role of other risk factors, including antithrombotic treatment and obesity, should be explored.