Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30373549›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

Feasibility, validity and reliability of objective smartphone measurements of physical activity and fitness in patients with cancer.

Joeri A J Douma, Henk M W Verheul, Laurien M Buffart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Six-Minute Walk Distance in Breast Cancer Survivors-A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Smartphone measurements of physical activity and fitness are associated with early trial discontinuation of patients in (hemato)oncology phase I/II clinical trials.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Physical activity in patients with cancer: self-report versus accelerometer assessments.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Joeri A J DoumaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC), location VU University Medical Center (VUmc), De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk M W VerheulDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC), location VU University Medical Center (VUmc), De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laurien M BuffartDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC), location VU University Medical Center (VUmc), De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.buffart@vumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8095-436X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA patient's physical function plays a leading role in the treatment prescription for patients with cancer. Objective assessments of physical function may be more predictive for treatment tolerability and survival than frequently used subjective measures, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization (ECOG/WHO) performance score. The use of smartphones to measure physical activity and fitness may provide an excellent opportunity to objectively estimate a patient's physical function against low costs and little time. We investigated feasibility, validity and reliability of smartphone measurements of step count and physical fitness in patients with cancer.

methodsIn total, 72 patients participated. They wore a smartphone for 14 days to measure the mean number of steps per day, concomitant with an accelerometer during the first 7 days. Patients performed a six-minute walk test (6MWT) twice outdoors via a smartphone application and once in a test environment in the hospital. Feasibility was evaluated by the proportion of patients who completed the study as well as smartphone assessments of step count and physical fitness. Validity was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the accelerometer and the first week of the smartphone for step count, and between the 6MWT in the hospital and via the application for physical fitness. Test-retest reliability was assessed with the ICC between step count levels of the first and second week of smartphone assessments, and between the first and second six-minute walk test in the home environment.

resultsThe completeness of smartphone measurements was approximately 90% for step count and 64% for physical fitness assessments. Validity was excellent for step count (ICC = 0.97, p < 0.001) and fair for fitness (ICC = 0.47, p < 0.001). We found excellent test-retest reliability for step count (ICC = 0.91, p < 0.001) and physical fitness (ICC = 0.88, p < 0.001).

conclusionsThis study showed that objective smartphone measurements of step count in clinical practice are feasible, valid and reliable. These findings indicate that the use of smartphones to objectively assess physical activity in clinical cancer practice is promising and may be used to select patients for treatment and study participation, to monitor patients during treatment and to guide treatment decisions.

Indexed as

ExercisePhysical FitnessSmartphoneAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSocioeconomic FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30373549
PMCPMC6206914

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.