Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36454326›Full record

SynthesisRheumatology international2023

Reporting quality of interventions using a wearable activity tracker to improve physical activity in patients with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

M A T van Wissen, M A M Berger, J W Schoones, M G J Gademan, C H M van den Ende, T P M Vliet Vlieland, S F E van Weely

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Rheumatology international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

7 authors.

M A T van WissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.a.t.van_wissen@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2998-4256
M A M BergerThe Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2014-8817
J W SchoonesDirectorate of Research Policy (Walaeus Library), Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1120-4781
M G J GademanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6106-3385
C H M van den EndeDepartment of Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4352-2824
T P M Vliet VlielandDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6322-3859
S F E van WeelyDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8560-4687

Funding

ZonMw 852004019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the reporting quality of interventions aiming at promoting physical activity (PA) using a wearable activity tracker (WAT) in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA). A systematic search was performed in eight databases (including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2000 and 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics and the reporting of the PA intervention using a WAT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) (12 items) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) E-Health checklist (16 items). The reporting quality of each study was expressed as a percentage of reported items of the total CERT and CONSORT E-Health (50% or less = poor; 51-79% = moderate; and 80-100% = good reporting quality). Sixteen studies were included; three involved patients with IA and 13 with OA. Reporting quality was poor in 6/16 studies and moderate in 10/16 studies, according to the CERT and poor in 8/16 and moderate in 8/16 studies following the CONSORT E-Health checklist. Poorly reported checklist items included: the description of decision rule(s) for determining progression and the starting level, the number of adverse events and how adherence or fidelity was assessed. In clinical trials on PA interventions using a WAT in patients with IA or OA, the reporting quality of delivery process is moderate to poor. The poor reporting quality of the progression and tailoring of the PA programs makes replication difficult. Improvements in reporting quality are necessary.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneeExerciseFitness TrackersHumansLower ExtremityAxial spondyloarthritisOsteoarthritisPhysical activityReporting qualityRheumatoid arthritisWearable activity tracker

Identifiers

PMID36454326
PMCPMC10073167

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.