ArticleResearch in developmental disabilities2022
A comparison of accelerometer cut-points for measuring physical activity and sedentary time in adolescents with Down syndrome.
Article in Research in developmental disabilities, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic influences on accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time in children: sex-specific patterns from a Swedish twin study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Accelerometer Output and Oxygen Uptake in Adults With and Without Down Syndrome: METs vs. Percent VOJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
- Resistance training and Down Syndrome: A narrative review on considerations for exercise prescription and safety.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
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
Abstract
backgroundNo cut-points have been developed for youth with Down syndrome; there is concern that altered gait patterns, decreased energy expenditure and exercise capacity of individuals with Down syndrome may produce inaccurate physical activity data if accelerometer data are analyzed using cut-points from populations with typical development and other IDD diagnoses.
aimTo compare physical activity and sedentary time across existing accelerometer cut-point methods in adolescents with Down syndrome.
methodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, participants diagnosed with Down syndrome (n = 37; 15.5 ± 1.9 years; 57 % female) wore an accelerometer on their non-dominant hip for seven-days. Data were analyzed and compared across four physical activity intensity cut-points: Evenson, Freedson 4-MET, McGarty, and Romanizi. OUTCOMES &
resultsDifferences in time spent in each intensity across cut-point methods were evident for sedentary (448-615 min/day), light (72-303 min/day) and moderate-to-vigorous (12-77 min/day) activities. Between 0.0-67.6 % of the sample met the physical activity guidelines, depending on the cut-point method selected. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study presents the wide variation of accumulated physical activity minutes when different cut-points are applied to individuals with Down syndrome. There is a critical need to establish Down syndrome-specific measures of physical activity assessment rather than applying methods developed for their peers with typical development. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: This paper highlights concerns over the application of objective measurements of physical activity in youth with Down syndrome from measurement methods derived from populations with typical development. This is the first manuscript to examine this issue in a sample comprised solely of youth with Down syndrome. Results demonstrate the large variation in time spent in each activity intensity that arise due to the application of different cut-point methods.
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.