Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41091538›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2025

Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.

Grace O Dibben, Carlos Santillan, Soren Brage, Matthew Buman, Edward Duncan, Malcolm H Granat, Melvyn Hillsdon, Anne Martin, Charles E Matthews, Paul McCrorie and 3 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025
    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

13 authors.

Grace O DibbenSchool of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-5187
Carlos SantillanIndependent Researcher, Glasgow, UK.
Soren BrageMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew BumanCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Edward DuncanNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Malcolm H GranatSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Melvyn HillsdonDepartment of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Anne MartinSchool of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Charles E MatthewsDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Paul McCrorieSchool of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Rod S TaylorSchool of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Tommi VasankariUKK Institute for the Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7209-9351
Charlie FosterBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU16Chief Scientist Office SPHSU19Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of accelerometers in health research is ubiquitous, but reporting of methods for translating raw acceleration data into movement behavior estimates remains inconsistent. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize existing reporting guidance for accelerometer-based assessment of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep in health research. We systematically searched seven bibliographic databases up to May 2024 for literature containing guidance on reporting of accelerometry results in health research. We assessed the methodological rigor of reporting guidance development using the AGREE II tool and EQUATOR Network's best-practice recommendations. A thematic synthesis categorized reporting guidance across four themes: (1) data collection, (2) data management and initial processing, (3) deriving movement behaviors from acceleration data, and (4) summary metrics. Searches retrieved 7739 records, from which 47 publications were included. Most applied evidence synthesis methods (76%), whilst others used consensus workshops or empirical research to generate reporting recommendations. Only 17% described stakeholder involvement, with limited descriptions of their role. We identified 380 items of reporting guidance, which were synthesized into 124 unique items. Reporting guidance was consistent for data collection, data management and initial processing, and variable derivation, but less so regarding which specific metrics to report. Existing reporting guidance for accelerometry in health research is extensive and wide in scope, but varies in methodological rigor and stakeholder involvement. A consolidated and systematically developed framework is needed to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of future accelerometer-based research, incorporating stakeholder engagement, consensus-driven methodology, and piloting to maximize uptake. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021272228.

Indexed as

AccelerometryBiomedical ResearchExerciseResearch DesignGuidelines as TopicHumansSedentary BehaviorSleep24‐h activityaccelerometerguidancemethodsphysical activityreportingsedentarysleep

Identifiers

PMID41091538
PMCPMC12525895

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.