Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35751097›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2022

Convergent validity of commonly used questions assessing physical activity and sedentary time in Swedish patients after myocardial infarction.

Amanda Lönn, Lena Viktoria Kallings, Mats Börjesson, Örjan Ekblom, Mattias Ekström

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda LönnDepartment of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Gymnastik- Och Idrottshögskolan (GIH), Lidingövägen 1, 114 33, Stockholm, Sweden. amanda.lonn@gih.se.
Lena Viktoria KallingsDepartment of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Gymnastik- Och Idrottshögskolan (GIH), Lidingövägen 1, 114 33, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mats BörjessonCenter for Health and Performance, Department of Food, Nutrition and Sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Örjan EkblomDepartment of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Gymnastik- Och Idrottshögskolan (GIH), Lidingövägen 1, 114 33, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mattias EkströmDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden.
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences · SEDanderyds sjukhus · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

The Swedish Heart and Lung Association 136/16The Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation 20200838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommend regular physical activity (PA) and decreased sedentary time (SED) for patients after myocardial infarction (MI). Therefore, valid self-assessment of PA is vital in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the convergent validity of commonly used PA and SED questions recommended by the National Board of Health and welfare (NBHW) and national SWEDEHEART-registry using accelerometers as the reference method in patients after MI.

methodsData were obtained 2017-2021 among Swedish men and women (180 assessments). Participants answered five commonly used PA and SED-questions (by NBHW and SWEDEHEART) and wore an accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) for seven days. Convergent validity was assessed gradually by; Kruskall Wallis-, Sperman rho, Weighted Kappa- and ROC-analyses. Misclassification was explored by Chi-square analyses with Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment.

resultsThe strongest correlation (r = 0.37) was found for the SED-GIH question (NBHW). For PA, no specific question stood out, with correlations of r = 0.31 (NBWH), and r = 0.24-0.30 (SWEDEHEART). For all questions (NBHW and SWEDEHEART), there was a high degree of misclassification (congruency 12-30%) affecting the agreement (0.09-0.32) between self-report and accelerometer assessed time. The SED-GIH, PA-index and SWEDEHEART-VPA had the strongest sensitivity for identifying individuals with high SED (0.72) or low PA (0.77 and 0.75).

conclusionThe studied PA and SED questions may provide an indication of PA and SED level among patients with MI in clinical practice and could be used to form a basis for further dialogue and assessment. Further development is needed, since practical assessment tools of PA and SED are desirable.

Indexed as

AccelerometerCoronary heart diseasePhysical activityQuestionnaireSedentary timeValidation

Identifiers

PMID35751097
PMCPMC9229098
OpenAlexW4283384733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.