Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24790493›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2014

Towards uniform accelerometry analysis: a standardization methodology to minimize measurement bias due to systematic accelerometer wear-time variation.

Tarun R Katapally, Nazeem Muhajarine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Potential for Bias across GPS-Accelerometer Combined Wear Criteria among Adolescents.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Taxonomic revision ofPhytoKeys · 2021
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A methodology to leverage cross-sectional accelerometry to capture weather's influence in active living research.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tarun R KatapallyDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, College of Medicine, Health Science Building , 107 Wiggins Road , University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon , Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5E5 .
Nazeem MuhajarineDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, College of Medicine, Health Science Building , 107 Wiggins Road , University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon , Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5E5 .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accelerometers are predominantly used to objectively measure the entire range of activity intensities - sedentary behaviour (SED), light physical activity (LPA) and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). However, studies consistently report results without accounting for systematic accelerometer wear-time variation (within and between participants), jeopardizing the validity of these results. This study describes the development of a standardization methodology to understand and minimize measurement bias due to wear-time variation. Accelerometry is generally conducted over seven consecutive days, with participants' data being commonly considered 'valid' only if wear-time is at least 10 hours/day. However, even within 'valid' data, there could be systematic wear-time variation. To explore this variation, accelerometer data of Smart Cities, Healthy Kids study (www.smartcitieshealthykids.com) were analyzed descriptively and with repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Subsequently, a standardization method was developed, where case-specific observed wear-time is controlled to an analyst specified time period. Next, case-specific accelerometer data are interpolated to this controlled wear-time to produce standardized variables. To understand discrepancies owing to wear-time variation, all analyses were conducted pre- and post-standardization. Descriptive analyses revealed systematic wear-time variation, both between and within participants. Pre- and post-standardized descriptive analyses of SED, LPA and MVPA revealed a persistent and often significant trend of wear-time's influence on activity. SED was consistently higher on weekdays before standardization; however, this trend was reversed post-standardization. Even though MVPA was significantly higher on weekdays both pre- and post-standardization, the magnitude of this difference decreased post-standardization. Multivariable analyses with standardized SED, LPA and MVPA as outcome variables yielded more stable results with narrower confidence intervals and smaller standard errors. Standardization of accelerometer data is effective in not only minimizing measurement bias due to systematic wear-time variation, but also to provide a uniform platform to compare results within and between populations and studies. Key pointsSystematic variation in accelerometer wear-time both, within and between participants results in measurement bias.Standardization of data after controlling for wear-time produces stable outcome variables.Descriptive and multivariate analyses conducted with standardized outcome variables minimize measurement bias.

Indexed as

Accelerometrydata standardizationwear-time variation

Identifiers

PMID24790493
PMCPMC3990893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.