Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27328833›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2016

A Systematic Review of Methods and Procedures Used in Ecological Momentary Assessments of Diet and Physical Activity Research in Youth: An Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies (CREMAS).

Yue Liao, Kara Skelton, Genevieve Dunton, Meg Bruening

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 176 papers, 30 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
176citing papers in PubMed, 30 pooled it
13.9field-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

176 citing papers in PubMed, 30 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 298 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A systematic review of ecological momentary assessment in autism research.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

116 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yue LiaoUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Behavioral Science, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9384-336X
Kara Skelton
Arizona State University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Maternal Stress and Children's Obesity RiskR01HL119255 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI DUNTON, GENEVIEVE FRIDLUND · 2013 to 2017
$4.0M
The Role of Friendship Networks on BMI and Behaviors among College FreshmenDP5OD017910 · OD · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI BRUENING, MEREDITH M · 2013 to 2017
$1.9M
HSRD VA SDR 10-012NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL119255NIH HHS DP5 OD017910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of collecting real-time data based on careful timing, repeated measures, and observations that take place in a participant's typical environment. Due to methodological advantages and rapid advancement in mobile technologies in recent years, more studies have adopted EMA in addressing topics of nutrition and physical activity in youth.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to describe EMA methodology that has been used in studies addressing nutrition and physical activity in youth and provide a comprehensive checklist for reporting EMA studies.

methodsThirteen studies were reviewed and analyzed for the following 5 areas of EMA methodology: (1) sampling and measures, (2) schedule, (3) technology and administration, (4) prompting strategy, and (5) response and compliance.

resultsResults of this review showed a wide variability in the design and reporting of EMA studies in nutrition and physical activity among youth. The majority of studies (69%) monitored their participants during one period of time, although the monitoring period ranged from 4 to 14 days, and EMA surveys ranged from 2 to 68 times per day. More than half (54%) of the studies employed some type of electronic technology. Most (85%) of the studies used interval-contingent prompting strategy. For studies that utilized electronic devices with interval-contingent prompting strategy, none reported the actual number of EMA prompts received by participants out of the intended number of prompts. About half (46%) of the studies failed to report information about EMA compliance rates. For those who reported, compliance rates ranged from 44-96%, with an average of 71%.

conclusionsFindings from this review suggest that in order to identify best practices for EMA methodology in nutrition and physical activity research among youth, more standardized EMA reporting is needed. Missing the key information about EMA design features and participant compliance might lead to misinterpretation of results. Future nutrition and physical activity EMA studies need to be more rigorous and thorough in descriptions of methodology and results. A reporting checklist was developed with the goal of enhancing reliability, efficacy, and overall interpretation of the findings for future studies that use EMAs.

Indexed as

ChecklistDietEcological Momentary AssessmentExerciseAdolescentHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultecological momentary assessmentnutritionphysical activityreporting checklistsystematic reviewyouth

Identifiers

PMID27328833
PMCPMC4933800
OpenAlexW2466299562

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.