Table 3 Summary of the accuracy of multi-sensor devices in persons who use wheelchairs during laboratory protocols

Conger et al.[109]

14 (3 F).

SCI (n = 7) SB (n = 4) AMP (n = 2) Other (n = 1)

IC EE

(Oxycon Mobile)

Five different wheeling activities. Propulsion on a level surface (4.5, 5.5 & 6.5 km/h), wheeling on a rubberised 400 m track (5.5 km/hr) & wheeling on a sidewalk course at a S-S speed

Actical on right wrist

No sig. differences between criterion method and Actical EE (±9 – 25%)

SWA on right upper arm

Sig. overestimated EE during wheelchair propulsion (+30 - 80%)

SWA using SCI general model (Hiremath and Ding, [70])

↓ EE prediction error (+27-43%), yet, this was still elevated during higher intensity activities

Hiremath & Ding [40]

24 SCI (5 F) (T3-L4)

IC EE (COSMED K4b²)

Resting and three activity routines; propulsion (performed on a WERG and flat tiled surface), ACE (20-40) and deskwork

Estimated EE from RT3 tri-axial ACC worn on the waist

R_S = 0.72 for all activities (↓ for propulsion; R_S = 0.44, ↑ for deskwork; R_S = 0.66). EE estimation errors ranged from 22.0 to 52.8%. Poor ICCs 0.64

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (manufacturer’s model)

R_S = 0.84 for all activities (↓ for deskwork; R_S = 0.65, ↑ for propulsion; R_S = 0.76). EE estimation errors ranged from 24.4 to 125.8%. Poor ICCs 0.62. Neither device is an appropriate tool for quantifying EE (<0.75)

Hiremath et al. [70]^c

45 (8 F)

(C4–L4)

IC EE (COSMED K4b²)

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (manufacturer’s model)

ICC = 0.64 (95% CI; 0.57–0.70)

M ± E = 51.5 ± 31.6%

MAE = 2.0 kcal · min^-1 (59.2%)

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (SCI general model)

ICC = 0.72 (95% CI; 0.66 – 0.77)

M ± E = -10.4 ± 11.8%

MAE = 0.9 kcal · min^-1 (24.7%)

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (activity-specific model)

ICC = 0.86 (95% CI; 0.82–0.88)

M ± E = −9.6 ± 10.9%

MAE = 0.6 kcal · min^-1 (16.8%)

Tsang et al. [71]^c

45 SCI^b (6 F)

(C5 – L5)

IC EE (COSMED K4b²)

Participants performed 10 activities from a list that included a range of activities and exercise of differing intensities

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (manufacturer’smodel)

ICC = 0.62 (95% CI; 0.16 – 0.81)

M ± E = 39.6 ± 37.8%

MAE = 43.3 ± 33.5%

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (SCI general model)

ICC = 0.86 (95% CI; 0.82 – 0.89)

M ± E = 2.8 ± 26.1%

MAE = 20.6 ± 16.2%

Estimated EE from SWA worn on the upper arm (activity-specific model)

ICC = 0.83 (95% CI; 0.79 – 0.87)

M ± E = 4.8 ± 25.4%

MAE = 19.6 ± 16.8%

Nightingale et al. [75]

15.

SCI (n = 8), SB (n = 3), CP (n = 1), AMP (n = 1),

Other (n = 2)

IC PAEE (TrueOne 2400, ParvoMedics)

A wheelchair propulsion protocol across a range of treadmill velocities (3–7 km/h and gradients (1–3%) including load carriage (+8% body mass) and a folding clothes task

Actiheart^TM using manufacturers proprietary algorithms

r = 0.76 (P < 0.01), SEE = 1.07 kcal · min^-1

mean bias ± 95% LoA = 0.51 ± 3.75 kcal · min^-1

MAE = 1.35 kcal · min^-1 (51.4%)

Actiheart^TM using individual heart rate calibration

r = 0.95 (P < 0.01), SEE = 0.49 kcal · min^-1

mean bias ± 95% LoA = - 0.22 ± 0.96 kcal · min^-1

MAE = 0.39 kcal · min^-1 (16.8%)