ReviewPreventive medicine reports2019
Calibration and validation of accelerometry to measure physical activity in adult clinical groups: A systematic review.
Review 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The 2025 European Cystic Fibrosis Society position statement on physical activity assessment in cystic fibrosis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Guideline
- Impact of low-dose aspirin on maternal haemoglobin levels during pregnancy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- From accelerometer data to activity patterns in chronic pain: methodical reasoning is key.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- Data Quality Degradation on Prediction Models Generated From Continuous Activity and Heart Rate Monitoring: Exploratory Analysis Using Simulation.JMIR cardio · 2023Article
- A theory-based model of cumulative activity.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Wearable-Based Stair Climb Power Estimation and Activity Classification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Establishing Accelerometer Cut-Points to Classify Walking Speed in People Post Stroke.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Accelerometer Calibration: The Importance of Considering Functionality.Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing body of research calibrating and validating accelerometers to classify physical activity intensities has led to a range of cut-points. However, the applicability of current calibration protocols to clinical populations remains to be addressed. The aim of this review was to evaluate the accuracy of the methods for calibrating and validating of accelerometers to estimate physical activity intensity thresholds for clinical populations. Six databases were searched between March and July to 2017 using text words and subject headings. Studies developing moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity cut-points for adult clinical populations were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the health measurement instruments and a specific checklist for calibration studies. A total of 543,741 titles were found and 323 articles were selected for full-text assessment, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three different methods for calibration were identified using different models of ActiGraph and Actical accelerometers. Disease-specific cut-points ranged from 591 to 2717 counts·min
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.