ArticleScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2025
Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a proposed guide to identify, screen and appraise self-report and device-based measures of habitual physical activity in systematic reviews: a methodological protocol.Discover public health · 2026Article
- Validation and optimisation of wearable accelerometer data pre-processing for digital measure implementation and development.PloS one · 2026Article
- Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 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
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.