ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Validation of an accelerometer system for activity monitoring in children with functional disabilities.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the validity of the SENS motion® system (SENS) for measuring postures and movements in school-aged children with functional disabilities, using direct video observation as the criterion method. In this cross-sectional-study, 29 children (51.7% male, mean age 10.8 ± 2.9 years) from two special schools in Denmark participated. Each child wore a SENS device on the thigh while completing a standardized protocol of six categories: lying/sitting, standing, walking, running, cycling, and step count. All activities were video recorded. Video data were coded in 5-s epochs and aligned with SENS output. Agreement was assessed by comparing the observed time spent in each activity with the corresponding time estimated by SENS, expressed as mean values, standard deviations, mean differences, and percentage agreement. SENS showed excellent agreement for walking (93.2%) and lying/sitting (96.2%), good agreement for running (89.2%), and moderate agreement for standing (74.1%). Cycling was poorly detected, with only 6.4% agreement, as it was frequently misclassified as walking (50.8%) or lying/sitting (42.7%). Step counts were slightly overestimated by SENS (mean difference 7.2 steps). Overall, SENS tended to underestimate activity duration compared with the observation.
conclusionSENS demonstrated excellent to good validity for detecting lying/sitting, walking, and acceptable validity for running in children with functional disabilities, but moderate validity for standing and limited validity for cycling. These findings indicate that SENS may be useful for monitoring several common postures and activities in this population, though further algorithm refinement and broader validation are needed, particularly for cycling and postural transitions. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Children with disabilities engage in less dynamic postures and more lying/sitting time than their peers without disabilities. • Accelerometer systems are typically validated in healthy populations, limiting accuracy in children with disabilities. WHAT IS NEW: • SENS shows excellent to good validity for lying/sitting, walking, and running in children with functional disabilities. • SENS performs poorly for cycling and moderately for standing, highlighting the need for algorithm refinement.
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.