ArticleJournal of science and medicine in sport2020
Identifying ActiGraph non-wear time in pregnant women with overweight or obesity.
Article in Journal of science and medicine in sport, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03945266 (Control Systems Engineering for Optimizing a Prenatal Weight Gain Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Control Systems Engineering for Optimizing a Prenatal Weight Gain Intervention
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cleaning and pre-processing of actigraphy data for physical activity and sleep research: a scoping review.Physiological measurement · 2026Article
- Wearable Sensors, Data Processing, and Artificial Intelligence in Pregnancy Monitoring: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Does Prenatal Physical Activity Affect the Occurrence of Postnatal Anxiety and Depression? Longitudinal Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesNon-wear time algorithms have not been validated in pregnant women with overweight/obesity (PW-OW/OB), potentially leading to misclassification of sedentary/activity data, and inaccurate estimates of how physical activity is associated with pregnancy outcomes. We examined: (1) validity/reliability of non-wear time algorithms in PW-OW/OB by comparing wear time from five algorithms to a self-report criterion and (2) whether these algorithms over- or underestimated sedentary behaviors.
designPW-OW/OB (N = 19) from the Healthy Mom Zone randomized controlled trial wore an ActiGraph GT3x + for 7 consecutive days between 8-12 weeks gestation.
methodsNon-wear algorithms (i.e., consecutive strings of zero acceleration in 60-second epochs) were tested at 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180-min. The monitor registered sedentary minutes as activity counts 0-99. Women completed daily self-report logs to report wear time.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients for each algorithm were 0.96-0.97; Bland-Altman plots revealed no bias; mean absolute percent errors were <10%. Compared to self-report (M = 829.5, SD = 62.1), equivalency testing revealed algorithm wear times (min/day) were equivalent: 60- (M = 816.4, SD = 58.4), 90- (M = 827.5, SD = 61.4), 120- (M = 830.8, SD = 65.2), 150- (M = 833.8, SD = 64.6) and 180-min (M = 837.4, SD = 65.4). Repeated measures ANOVA showed 60- and 90-min algorithms may underestimate sedentary minutes compared to 150- and 180-min algorithms.
conclusionsThe 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180-min algorithms are valid and reliable for estimating wear time in PW-OW/OB. However, implementing algorithms with a higher threshold for consecutive zero counts (i.e., ≥150-min) can avoid the risk of misclassifying sedentary data.
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.