Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713990›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2022

Comparison of chest- and wrist-based actigraphy in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Daniel Lachant, Allison Light, Kevin Hannon, Farrukh Abbas, Michael Lachant, R James White

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel LachantDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 692, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3441-8264
Allison LightDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 692, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
Kevin HannonDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
Farrukh AbbasDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 692, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
Michael LachantDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 692, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
R James WhiteDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 692, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
University of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR001999 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI XIAO, JIN · 2016 to 2024
$5.2M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Activity trackers for clinical trials and remote monitoring are appealing as they provide objective data outside of the clinic setting. Algorithms determine physical activity intensity and count steps. Multiple studies show physical inactivity in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). There are no studies comparing different activity trackers worn on different parts of the body in PAH. We had patients with PAH simultaneously wear two different accelerometers, compared measures between the two devices, and correlated the measures with standard clinical metrics in PAH. Methods and results: This was a single-centre, prospective observational study. Daily physical activity and daily total steps were measured using Actigraph GT9X Link and MC10 Biostamp nPoint for 5-10 days. Actigraph was worn on the non-dominant hand and the MC10 Biostamp nPoint was worn on the chest and leg with disposable adhesives. Twenty-two participants wore both accelerometers >12 h/day for an average 7.8 days. The average activity time measured by Actigraph was significantly higher than that measured by MC10 (251 ± 25 min vs. 113 ± 18 min, Conclusion: Different activity trackers yield discordant results in PAH patients. Further studies are needed in determining the best device, optimal wear time, and different thresholds for activities in chronic diseases.

Indexed as

Activity timeActivity trackerPAHStepsWearable

Identifiers

PMID36713990
PMCPMC9707912
OpenAlexW3209173270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.