ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019
Reliability and validity of environmental audits using GigaPan® technology in parks.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual audits of the urban streetscape: comparing the inter-rater reliability of GigaPan® to Google Street View.International journal of health geographics · 2020Article
- Associations between body mass index, physical activity and the built environment in disadvantaged, minority neighborhoods: Predictive validity of GigaPan® imagery.Journal of transport & health · 2020Article
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
Park quality and features can contribute to more engaging places for play and recreation. However, assessing park characteristics remains a challenge. This study measured the reliability of GigaPan® as a method for assessing park characteristics as well as the validity of GigaPan® compared to Google Street View (GSV) and direct observation (DO). A total of 65 target areas (16 parks total) in Pittsburgh, PA were assessed using GigaPan®, GSV, and DO from July 2015-January 2016. For reliability and validity, 14 and 28 variables were examined, respectively. Cohen's kappa was used to assess inter-rater reliability. Sensitivity and specificity were used to measure validity. Of the 14 variables included in the inter-rater reliability analysis, five variables had almost perfect reliability (kappa > 0.80) and three variables had substantial reliability (kappa > 0.60). Of the 28 variables included in the validity analysis, GigaPan® was able to correctly classify 17 of the 28 variables and GSV was able to correctly classify 15 of the 28 variables with a sensitivity >80%. There were no significant differences between sensitivity and specificity between GSV and GigaPan®. GigaPan® performed similarly to GSV with DO being used as the gold standard. Further, GigaPan overall had high reliability among the features measured. A strength of GigaPan® is the ability to be implemented quickly in the field, making it a viable alternative to GSV particularly when temporality is an important factor.
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.