Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095261›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Pattern measures of sedentary behaviour in adults: A literature review.

Simone T Boerema, Lex van Velsen, Miriam Mr Vollenbroek, Hermie J Hermens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Association of wearableZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Not just how much, but how it's done: movement activity bout distributions and everyday cognition in older adults with elevated dementia risk.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Simone T BoeremaBiomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4760-3007
Lex van VelsenBiomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0599-8706
Miriam Mr VollenbroekBiomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Hermie J HermensBiomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWith sensors, we are increasingly able to assess sitting behaviour during the day. However, there is no consensus among researchers on the best outcome measures for representing the accumulation of sedentary time during the day.

methodsWe analysed the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour. Articles reporting patterns measures in adults, in which behaviour data was collected with a sensor were included. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour and provide recommendations for choosing objective measures of sedentary behaviour.

resultsMost studies report the number of sitting bouts during the day. Others focus on the number of breaks and/or periods of physical activity. Simple measures of sedentary behaviour were most popular. More complex pattern measures, such as the Gini index or the half-life bout duration, that capture the distribution of lengths of sitting periods in a single number, were reported sparsely. The sedentary patterns that were reported in the various studies were difficult to compare, due to the differences among measurement devices, data analysis protocols and a lack of basic outcome parameters such as total wear-time and total sedentary time.

conclusionsObjective sedentary measures can be grouped into simple and complex measures of sedentary time accumulation during the day. These measures serve different goals. The answer to the question as to which measures are most suitable to report, is strongly dependent on the research question. We have shown that the reported measures were dependent on (a) the sensing method, (b) the classification method, (c) the experimental and data cleaning protocol and (d) the applied definitions of bouts and breaks. We recommend that studies should always report total wear-time, total sedentary time, number of bouts and at least one measure describing the diversity of bout lengths in the sedentary behaviour such as the half-life bout duration. Additionally, we recommend reporting the measurement conditions and data processing steps.

Indexed as

accelerometeradultsboutbreaksinclinometerobjective assessmentPatternphysical activitysedentary behavioursensor

Identifiers

PMID32095261
PMCPMC7013117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.