ArticleChild: care, health and development2025
Beyond the (Log)book: Comparing Accelerometer Nonwear Detection Techniques in Toddlers.
Article in Child: care, health and development, 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.
- Impact of cut-point methods on classification of physical activity and sedentary behaviour of toddlers.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Beyond the (Log)book: Comparing Accelerometer Nonwear Detection Techniques in Toddlers.Child: care, health and development · 2025Article
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
backgroundAccelerometers are increasingly used to measure physical activity and sedentary time in toddlers. Data cleaning or wear time validation can impact outcomes of interest, particularly in young children who spend less time awake. However, no study has systematically compared wear time validation strategies in toddlers. As such, the objective of this study is to compare different fully automated methods of distinguishing wear and nonwear time (counts and raw data algorithms) methods to the semi automated (counts with logbooks) criterion method in toddlers.
methodsWe recruited 109 toddlers (age 12-35 months) as part of the iPLAY study to wear an ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT accelerometer on the right hip for ~7 consecutive days (removed for sleep and water activities). Parents completed a logbook to indicate monitor removal and nap times. We tested 15 nonwear detection methods grouped into four main categories: semi-automated logbook, consecutive 0 counts, modified consecutive 0 counts (Troiano and Choi) and raw data methods (van Hees and Ahmadi). Using semi-automated logbooks as the criterion standard (all wear and wake-time only wear), we calculated the accuracy and F1 scores (a metric which balances precision and recall) and compared overall wear time with a two one-sided test of equivalence.
resultsParticipant daily wear time ranged from 556 to 684 min/day depending on method. Accuracy and F1 score ranged from 86% to 95%. Five methods were considered equivalent to the AllWear nonwear criterion (true wear time including sleep-time wear), with only one equivalent to the AwakeWear criterion. Mean absolute differences were lower for the AllWear criterion but ranged from 49 to 192 min/day.
conclusionsThe 5min0count, 10min_0count, 30min_0count, Troiano60s and Ahmadi methods provide high accuracy and equivalency when compared with semi-automated cleaning using logbooks. This paper provides insights and quantitative results that can help researchers decide which method may be the most appropriate given their population of interest, sample size and study protocol.
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.