Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27760219›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Calibration and Cross-Validation of the ActiGraph wGT3X+ Accelerometer for the Estimation of Physical Activity Intensity in Children with Intellectual Disabilities.

Arlene M McGarty, Victoria Penpraze, Craig A Melville

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Using functional principal component analysis (FPCA) to quantify sitting patterns derived from wearable sensors.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Physical activity levels of children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe intellectual disability.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2019
    Article
  19. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arlene M McGartyInstitute of Health & Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Victoria PenprazeSchool of Life Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Craig A MelvilleInstitute of Health & Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValid objective measurement is integral to increasing our understanding of physical activity and sedentary behaviours. However, no population-specific cut points have been calibrated for children with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, this study aimed to calibrate and cross-validate the first population-specific accelerometer intensity cut points for children with intellectual disabilities.

methodsFifty children with intellectual disabilities were randomly assigned to the calibration (n = 36; boys = 28, 9.53±1.08yrs) or cross-validation (n = 14; boys = 9, 9.57±1.16yrs) group. Participants completed a semi-structured school-based activity session, which included various activities ranging from sedentary to vigorous intensity. Direct observation (SOFIT tool) was used to calibrate the ActiGraph wGT3X+, which participants wore on the right hip. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses determined the optimal cut points for sedentary, moderate, and vigorous intensity activity for the vertical axis and vector magnitude. Classification agreement was investigated using sensitivity, specificity, total agreement, and Cohen's kappa scores against the criterion measure of SOFIT.

resultsThe optimal (AUC = .87-.94) vertical axis cut points (cpm) were ≤507 (sedentary), 1008-2300 (moderate), and ≥2301 (vigorous), which demonstrated high sensitivity (81-88%) and specificity (81-85%). The optimal (AUC = .86-.92) vector magnitude cut points (cpm) of ≤1863 (sedentary), 2610-4214 (moderate), and ≥4215 (vigorous) demonstrated comparable, albeit marginally lower, accuracy than the vertical axis cut points (sensitivity = 80-86%; specificity = 77-82%). Classification agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect (κ = .51-.85) with high sensitivity and specificity, and confirmed the trend that accuracy increased with intensity, and vertical axis cut points provide higher classification agreement than vector magnitude cut points.

conclusionsThis study provides the first valid methods of interpreting accelerometer output in children with intellectual disabilities. The calibrated physical activity cut points are notably higher than existing cut points, thus raising questions on the validity of previous low physical activity estimates in children with intellectual disabilities that were based on typically developing cut points.

Indexed as

ActigraphyCalibrationChildExerciseFemaleHumansIntellectual DisabilityMaleRandom AllocationROC CurveSedentary Behavior

Identifiers

PMID27760219
PMCPMC5070820
OpenAlexW2534650831

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.