ArticlePloS one2018
Convergent validity of ActiGraph and Actical accelerometers for estimating physical activity in adults.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sedentary behaviors and physical activity of the working population measured by accelerometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Joint associations of accelero-meter measured physical activity and sedentary time with all-cause mortality: a harmonised meta-analysis in more than 44 000 middle-aged and older individuals.British journal of sports medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Pooled it
- Digital Health Technologies to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical Activity and Reduce Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Older Adults: A Pilot Study.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingTrial
- Linking Socio-Behavioral Health and Accelerometer Wear Time in Caregiver-Preschooler Dyads: The Moderating Role of Coping Strategies.Mental health and physical activity · 2026Article
- Accelerometer-measured physical activity: comparing young adult football players and non-athletic peers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between Physical Activity and Limited Range of Motion in the Older Bedridden Patients.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2023Article
- Review
- Daytime napping and Alzheimer's dementia: A potential bidirectional relationship.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023Article
- Objective and subjective measurement of sedentary behavior in human adults: A toolkit.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2022Article
- Article
- Association of Barriers, Fear of Falling and Fatigue with Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Chronic Stroke.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Immediate Effect of Restricted Knee Extension on Ground Reaction Force and Trunk Acceleration during Walking.Rehabilitation research and practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Feasibility Study Comparing Physical Activity Classifications from Accelerometers with Wearable Camera Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Assessing Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior under Free-Living Conditions: Comparison of Active Style Pro HJA-350IT and ActiGraphInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present study was to examine the convergent validity of two commonly-used accelerometers for estimating time spent in various physical activity intensities in adults.
methodsThe sample comprised 37 adults (26 males) with a mean (SD) age of 37.6 (12.2) years from San Diego, USA. Participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ and Actical accelerometers for three consecutive days. Percent agreement was used to compare time spent within four physical activity intensity categories under three counts per minute (CPM) threshold protocols: (1) using thresholds developed specifically for each accelerometer, (2) applying ActiGraph thresholds to regression-rectified Actical CPM data, and (3) developing new 'optimal' Actical thresholds.
resultsUsing Protocol 1, the Actical estimated significantly less time spent in light (-16.3%), moderate (-2.8%), and vigorous (-0.4%) activity than the ActiGraph, but greater time spent sedentary (+20.5%). Differences were slightly more pronounced when the low frequency extension filter on the ActiGraph was enabled. The two adjustment methods (Protocols 2 and 3) improved agreement in this sample.
conclusionsOur findings show that ActiGraph and Actical accelerometers provide significantly different estimates of time spent in various physical activity intensities. Regression and threshold adjustment were able to reduce these differences, although some level of non-agreement persisted. Researchers should be aware of the inherent limitations of count-based physical activity assessment when reporting and interpreting study findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.