ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Physical activity and sedentary behavior in peritoneal dialysis patients: a comparative analysis of ActiGraph GT3X data collected via wrist and waist with placement-specific cut-points.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A combined progressive muscle relaxation and walking intervention for adults with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis (Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Application of Nanogenerators in Lumbar Motion Monitoring: Fundamentals, Current Status, and Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing adoption of accelerometers for the assessment of sedentary behaviour and physical activity among dialysis patients demands robust validation of these monitoring devices. This study aims to determine the comparability of wrist- versus waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers, using placement-specific cut-points for peritoneal dialysis patients, to refine research and clinical practices.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study. Thirty-one participants wore two ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers, positioned on the right waist and nondominant wrist, and monitored over a seven-day period in a naturalistic setting. Data were processed with ActiLife v6.13.3 and analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), limits of agreement, and pairwise 90% equivalence test within a ± 10% threshold.
resultsThe sedentary time measurements from both wrist- and waist-worn GT3X accelerometers were deemed equivalent, with high ICC values (0.98, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.97-0.99) and a ratio of 1.0 within the 90% CI of 0.9 to 1.0. Although agreement between accelerometers was good for classification of light-intensity activity (ICC = 0.76), the waist-worn device's estimates exceeded the equivalence criteria compared to the wrist-worn device (ratio 1.4; 90% CI 1.2-1.6). Conversely, the waist-worn device reported a significantly lower duration of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) than the wrist-worn device (Ln transformed ratio 0.3; 90% CI 0.1-0.4).
conclusionsThe use of placement-specific cut-points did not ensure equivalence in physical activity parameter estimates between wrist- and waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X devices. The findings underscore the necessity for consistent accelerometer placement for reliable monitoring of physical activity in peritoneal dialysis patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.