Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30094797›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Physical Activity Questionnaires for Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.

Matteo C Sattler, Johannes Jaunig, Estelle D Watson, Mireille N M van Poppel, Lidwine B Mokkink, Caroline B Terwee, Pavel Dietz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Influence of Appetite and Perceived Ability to Control Cravings on Excessive Gestational Weight Gain.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2021
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluating physical activity questionnaires for postpartum women.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Matteo C SattlerInstitute of Sport Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria. matteo.sattler@uni-graz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0689-1938
Johannes JaunigInstitute of Sport Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Estelle D WatsonCentre for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Therapeutic Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa.
Mireille N M van PoppelInstitute of Sport Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Lidwine B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pavel DietzInstitute of Sport Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to assess physical activity (PA) during pregnancy, it is important to choose the instrument with the best measurement properties.

objectivesTo systematically summarize, appraise, and compare the measurement properties of all self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in pregnancy.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus with the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study reported at least one measurement property (reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (ii) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (iii) the questionnaire was evaluated in healthy pregnant women; and (iv) the study was published in English. We evaluated results, quality of individual studies, and quality of evidence using a standardized checklist (Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires [QAPAQ]) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

resultsSeventeen articles, reporting 18 studies of 11 different PA questionnaires (17 versions), were included. Most questionnaire versions showed insufficient measurement properties. Only the French and Turkish versions of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) showed both sufficient reliability and construct validity. However, all versions of the PPAQ pooled together showed insufficient construct validity. The quality of individual studies was usually high for reliability but varied considerably for construct validity. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate.

conclusionsWe recommend the PPAQ to assess PA in pregnancy, although the pooled results revealed insufficient construct validity. The lack of appropriate standards in data collection and processing criteria for objective devices in measuring PA during pregnancy attenuates the quality of evidence. Therefore, research on the validity of comparison instruments in pregnancy followed by consensus on validation reference criteria and standards of PA measurement is needed.

Indexed as

ExercisePregnancyFemaleHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30094797
PMCPMC6132497

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.