Low validity of the Sensewear Pro3 activity monitor compared to indirect calorimetry during simulated free living in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip
1 Orthopedic Research Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
2 Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Herlev University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
4 Institute of Sport Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
5 Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
6 Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
7 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2750 Herlev, Denmark
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:43 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-43Published: 19 February 2014
To validate physical activity estimates by the Sensewear Pro3 activity monitor compared with indirect calorimetry during simulated free living in patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the hip pre or post total hip arthroplasty.
Twenty patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis (10 pre- and 10 post total hip arthroplasty; 40% female; age: 63.3 ± 9.0; BMI: 23.7 ± 3.7). All patients completed a 2 hour protocol of simulated free living with 8 different typical physical activity types. Energy consumption (kcal/min) was estimated by the Sense Wear pro3 Armband activity monitor and validated against indirect calorimetry (criterion method) by means of a portable unit (Cosmed K4b2). Bias and variance was analyzed using functional ANOVA.
Mean bias during all activities was 1.5 Kcal/min 95%CI [1.3; 1.8] corresponding to 72% (overestimation). Normal gait speed showed an overestimation of 2.8 Kcal/min, 95%CI [2.3; 3.3] (93%) while an underestimation of -1.1 Kcal/min, 95%CI [-1.8; -0.3] (-25%) was recorded during stair climb. Activities dominated by upper body movements showed large overestimation with 4.37 Kcal/min, 95%CI [3.8; 5.1] (170%) being recorded during gardening. Both bias and variance appeared to be dependent on activity type.
The activity monitor generally overestimated the energy consumption during common activities of low to medium intensity in the patient group. The size and direction of the bias was highly dependent on the activity type which indicates the activity monitor is of limited value in patients with hip osteoarthritis and that the results do not express the real energy expenditure.