Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30670036›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2019

Measuring change in trials of physical activity interventions: a comparison of self-report questionnaire and accelerometry within the PACE-UP trial.

Elizabeth S Limb, Shaleen Ahmad, Derek G Cook, Sally M Kerry, Ulf Ekelund, Peter H Whincup, Christina R Victor, Steve Iliffe, Michael Ussher, Julia Fox-Rushby and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Physical activity measurements in individuals with interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Developing a brief older adults' physical activity questionnaire.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2024
    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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Elizabeth S LimbPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Shaleen AhmadPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK. d.cook@sgul.ac.uk.
Sally M KerryPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary's University of London, London, E1 2AT, UK.
Ulf EkelundDepartment of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, PO Box 4014, 0806, Oslo, Norway.
Peter H WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Christina R VictorGerontology and Health Services Research Unit, Brunel University, London, UB8 3PH, UK.
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Julia Fox-RushbyPresent address: Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, SE1 1UL, UK.
Cheryl FurnessPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Judith IbisonPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Stephen DeWildePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
St George's, University of London · GBBrunel University of London · GBKing's College London · GBNorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NOQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/32/02Department of Health HTA 10/32/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew trials have compared estimates of change in physical activity (PA) levels using self-reported and objective PA measures when evaluating trial outcomes. The PACE-UP trial offered the opportunity to assess this, using the self-administered International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and waist-worn accelerometry.

methodsThe PACE-UP trial (N = 1023) compared usual care (n = 338) with two pedometer-based walking interventions, by post (n = 339) or with nurse support (n = 346). Participants wore an accelerometer at baseline and 12 months and completed IPAQ for the same 7-day periods. Main outcomes were weekly minutes, all in ≥10 min bouts as per UK PA guidelines of: i) accelerometer moderate-to-vigorous PA (Acc-MVPA) ii) IPAQ moderate+vigorous PA (IPAQ-MVPA) and iii) IPAQ walking (IPAQ-Walk). For each outcome, 12 month values were regressed on baseline to estimate change.

resultsAnalyses were restricted to 655 (64%) participants who provided data on all outcomes at baseline and 12 months. Both intervention groups significantly increased their accelerometry MVPA minutes/week compared with control: postal group 42 (95% CI 22, 61), nurse group 43 (95% CI 24, 63). IPAQ-Walk minutes/week also increased: postal 57 (95% CI 2, 112), nurse 43 (95% CI -11, 97) but IPAQ-MVPA minutes/week showed non-significant decreases: postal -11 (95% CI -65, 42), nurse -34 (95% CI -87, 19).

conclusionsOur results demonstrate the necessity of using a questionnaire focussing on the activities being altered, as with IPAQ-Walk questions. Even then, the change in PA was estimated with far less precision than with accelerometry. Accelerometry is preferred to self-report measurement, minimising bias and improving precision when assessing effects of a walking intervention.

trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN98538934 . Registered 2 March 2012.

Indexed as

AccelerometryOutcome Assessment, Health CareSelf ReportWalkingActigraphyAgedExerciseFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesAccelerometryGPPAQInterventionIPAQMVPAPrimary careWalking

Identifiers

PMID30670036
PMCPMC6341662
OpenAlexW2919527811

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.