Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25347989›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2014

Validity and usability of low-cost accelerometers for internet-based self-monitoring of physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Martijn Vooijs, Laurence L Alpay, Jiska B Snoeck-Stroband, Thijs Beerthuizen, Petra C Siemonsma, Jannie J Abbink, Jacob K Sont, Ton A Rövekamp

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martijn VooijsRijnlands Rehabilitation Center, Department of Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Leiden, Netherlands. m.vooijs@rrc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3303-7171
Laurence L AlpayORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8243-0607
Jiska B Snoeck-StrobandORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3598-7971
Thijs BeerthuizenORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8998-3407
Petra C SiemonsmaORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0005-4407
Jannie J AbbinkORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0397-5554
Jacob K SontORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5840-0651
Ton A RövekampORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6226-2060
Leiden University Medical Center · NLRijnlands Revalidatie Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of regular physical activity for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is well-established. However, many patients do not meet the recommended daily amount. Accelerometers might provide patients with the information needed to increase physical activity in daily life.

objectiveOur objective was to assess the validity and usability of low-cost Internet-connected accelerometers. Furthermore we explored patients' preferences with regards to the presentation of and feedback on monitored physical activity.

methodsTo assess concurrent validity we conducted a field validation study with patients who wore two low-cost accelerometers, Fitbit and Physical Activity Monitor (PAM), at the same time along with a sophisticated multisensor accelerometer (SenseWear Armband) for 48 hours. Data on energy expenditure assessed from registrations from the two low-cost accelerometers were compared to the well validated SenseWear Armband which served as a reference criterion. Usability was examined in a cross-over study with patients who, in succession, wore the Fitbit and the PAM for 7 consecutive days and filled out a 16 item questionnaire with regards to the use of the corresponding device

resultsThe agreement between energy expenditure (METs) from the SenseWear Armband with METs estimated by the Fitbit and PAM was good (r=.77) and moderate (r=.41), respectively. The regression model that was developed for the Fitbit explained 92% whereas the PAM-model could explain 89% of total variance in METs measured by the SenseWear. With regards to the usability, both the Fitbit and PAM were well rated on all items. There were no significant differences between the two devices.

conclusionsThe low-cost Fitbit and PAM are valid and usable devices to measure physical activity in patients with COPD. These devices may be useful in long-term interventions aiming at increasing physical activity levels in these patients.

Indexed as

accelerometersactivity monitoringchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseusabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID25347989
PMCPMC4259960
OpenAlexW2156992795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.