Real-World Accuracy of Wearable Activity Trackers for Detecting Medical Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundWearable activity trackers, including fitness bands and smartwatches, offer the potential for disease detection by monitoring physiological parameters. However, their accuracy as specific disease diagnostic tools remains uncertain. ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate whether wearable activity trackers can be used to detect disease and medical events. MethodsTen electronic databases were searched for studies published from inception to April 1, 2023. Studies were eligible if they used a wearable activity tracker to diagnose or detect a medical condition or event (eg, falls) in free-living conditions in adults. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the overall area under the curve (%), accuracy (%), sensitivity (%), specificity (%), and positive predictive value (%). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess device type (Fitbit, Oura ring, and mixed). The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. ResultsA total of 28 studies were included, involving a total of 1,226,801 participants (age range 28.6-78.3). In total, 16 (57%) studies used wearables for diagnosis of COVID-19, 5 (18%) studies for atrial fibrillation, 3 (11%) studies for arrhythmia or abnormal pulse, 3 (11%) studies for falls, and 1 (4%) study for viral symptoms. The devices used were Fitbit (n=6), Apple watch (n=6), Oura ring (n=3), a combination of devices (n=7), Empatica E4 (n=1), Dynaport MoveMonitor (n=2), Samsung Galaxy Watch (n=1), and other or not specified (n=2). For COVID-19 detection, meta-analyses showed a pooled area under the curve of 80.2% (95% CI 71.0%-89.3%), an accuracy of 87.5% (95% CI 81.6%-93.5%), a sensitivity of 79.5% (95% CI 67.7%-91.3%), and specificity of 76.8% (95% CI 69.4%-84.1%). For atrial fibrillation detection, pooled positive predictive value was 87.4% (95% CI 75.7%-99.1%), sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI 88.7%-99.7%), and specificity was 95.3% (95% CI 91.8%-98.8%). For fall detection, pooled sensitivity was 81.9% (95% CI 75.1%-88.1%) and specificity was 62.5% (95% CI 14.4%-100%). ConclusionsWearable activity trackers show promise in disease detection, with notable accuracy in identifying atrial fibrillation and COVID-19. While these findings are encouraging, further research and improvements are required to enhance their diagnostic precision and applicability. Trial RegistrationProspero CRD42023407867; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=407867