Effectiveness of Wearable Trackers on Physical Activity in Healthy Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearable trackers are an increasingly popular tool among healthy adults and are used to facilitate self-monitoring of physical activity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of wearable trackers for improving physical activity and weight reduction among healthy adults. METHODS: This review used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology and reporting criteria. English-language randomized controlled trials with more than 20 participants from MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus (2000-2017) were identified. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported an intervention group using wearable trackers, reporting steps per day, total moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, activity, physical activity, energy expenditure, and weight reduction. RESULTS: Twelve eligible studies with a total of 1693 participants met the inclusion criteria. The weighted average age was 40.7 years (95% CI 31.1-50.3), with 64.4% women. The mean intervention duration was 21.4 weeks (95% CI 6.1-36.7). The usage of wearable trackers was associated with increased physical activity (standardized mean difference 0.449, 95% CI 0.10-0.80; P=.01). In the subgroup analyses, however, wearable trackers demonstrated no clear benefit for physical activity or weight reduction. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the use of wearable trackers in healthy adults may be associated with modest short-term increases in physical activity. Further data are required to determine if a sustained benefit is associated with wearable tracker usage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".