Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31915935›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical systems2020

Mobile Apps to Quantify Aspects of Physical Activity: a Systematic Review on its Reliability and Validity.

Anabela G Silva, Patrícia Simões, Alexandra Queirós, Mário Rodrigues, Nelson P Rocha

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

5 authors.

Anabela G SilvaSchool of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal. asilva@ua.pt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4386-5851
Patrícia SimõesSchool of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal.
Alexandra QueirósSchool of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal.
Mário RodriguesInstitute of Electronics and Telematics Engineering of Aveiro (IEETA), University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal.
Nelson P RochaInstitute of Electronics and Telematics Engineering of Aveiro (IEETA), University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal.

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SAICT-POL/24293/2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to systematically review and evaluate the evidence on the accuracy (validity) and consistency (reliability) of mobile apps used to quantify physical activity. Systematic literature searches were conducted in Pubmed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Academic Search Complete and IEEE Xplore. Studies were included if they reported on the validity and/or reliability of a mobile application aiming primarily at measuring physical activity in humans with or without pathology. The reference lists of included articles were also screened for reports not identified through electronic searches. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers and data extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. A total of 25 articles were included in this review, of which 18 refer to validity and 7 to both validity and reliability. Mean percentage difference was used as an indicator of validity and varied between 0.1% and 79.3%. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients varied between 0.02 and 0.99 indicating poor to excellent reliability. There is conflicting and insufficient evidence on the validity and reliability, respectively, of apps for measuring physical activity. Nevertheless, velocity and the place where the smartphone is carried seem to have an impact on validity.

Indexed as

ExerciseHumansMobile ApplicationsReproducibility of ResultsSmartphoneMobile applicationsPhysical activityReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID31915935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.