ArticlePhysical activity and nutrition2025
Effectiveness of instruments for assessing physical activity in adolescents: a systematic review.
Article in Physical activity and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of instruments for assessing physical activity in adolescents: a systematic review.Physical activity and nutrition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2016 that 81% of adolescents aged 11 to 17 years have insufficient physical activity (PA). This decline, coupled with poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles, has emerged as a global concern. Regular PA is linked to better academic performance, motor skills, sleep, and stronger bones and muscles. Although most interventions to enhance PA in children are school-based, these have not effectively increased the overall daily PA. This review assesses the effectiveness of new devices such as electronic watches and smartphones in evaluating PA in older schoolchildren.
methodsThis review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were searched for articles. After removing duplicates, two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts. Methodological quality was assessed using standardized tools, and data were extracted systematically.
resultsThe search identified 2,259 articles, with 571 screened and 11 fully reviewed. Five studies were included, conducted in the USA, Namibia, Greece, Turkey, and Spain, involving adolescents averaging 13.8 years old. Three studies focused on self-reported tools, whereas two examined wearable monitors and smartphone apps. Waist-worn monitors displayed higher accuracy, whereas self-reported tools varied in validity and reliability.
conclusionBoth traditional and new PA assessment tools have strengths and limitations. Waist-worn monitors generally provide higher accuracy, whereas self-reported tools can be reliable if properly calibrated. Continuous evaluation is essential for improving PA assessment in school-age children.
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.