Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2021
A catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies during treadmill walking: the CADENCE-Kids study.
Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01989104 (Cadence and Intensity in Children and Adolescents), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Cadence and Intensity in Children and Adolescents (CADENCE-KIDS)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Snacktivity in older women: accelerometer-derived step counts, cadence, and bout patterns associated with adiposity.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of instruments for assessing physical activity in adolescents: a systematic review.Physical activity and nutrition · 2025Article
- Step Count Accuracy of the Life Plus Connected Watch at Different Localizations and Speeds in Healthy Adults, Patients With Cardiovascular Disease, and Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: Step Count Validation Study in Laboratory Settings.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Estimating hip impact velocity and acceleration from video-captured falls using a pose estimation algorithm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study.BMC digital health · 2025Article
- Interrupting bedtime to reverse frailty levels in acute care: a study protocol for the Breaking Bad Rest randomized controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Accuracy and Reliability of a Suite of Digital Measures of Walking Generated Using a Wrist-Worn Sensor in Healthy Individuals: Performance Characterization Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Validity and Reliability of the activPAL4Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies during treadmill walking: the CADENCE-adults study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWearable technologies play an important role in measuring physical activity (PA) and promoting health. Standardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) compare performance of step counting wearable technologies in young people. PURPOSE: To produce a catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies assessed during different treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]), wear locations (waist, wrist/arm, thigh, and ankle), and age groups (children, 6-12 years; adolescents, 13-17 years; young adults, 18-20 years).
methodsOne hundred seventeen individuals (13.1 ± 4.2 years, 50.4% female) participated in this cross-sectional study and completed 5-min treadmill bouts (0.8 km/h to 8.0 km/h) while wearing eight devices (Waist: Actical, ActiGraph GT3X+, NL-1000, SW-200; Wrist: ActiGraph GT3X+; Arm: SenseWear; Thigh: activPAL; Ankle: StepWatch). Directly observed steps served as the criterion measure. Accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV) were computed.
resultsFive of the eight tested wearable technologies (i.e., Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+, activPAL, StepWatch, and SW-200) performed at < 5% MAPE over the range of normal speeds. More generally, waist (MAPE = 4%), thigh (4%) and ankle (5%) locations displayed higher accuracy than the wrist location (23%) at normal speeds. On average, all wearable technologies displayed the lowest accuracy across slow speeds (MAPE = 50.1 ± 35.5%), and the highest accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 15.9 ± 21.7%). Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias (P < 0.001), but not on precision (P > 0.05). Age did not have any effect (P > 0.05).
conclusionsStandardized validation indices focused on accuracy, bias, and precision were cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group to serve as important reference points when selecting and/or evaluating device performance in young people moving forward. Reduced performance can be expected at very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h) for all devices. Ankle-worn and thigh-worn devices demonstrated the highest accuracy. Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias, but not precision.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01989104 . Registered November 14, 2013.
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.