Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41878660›Full record

ArticleJSAMS plus2024

Evaluating the measurement properties and feasibility of physical activity and physical function assessments for children undergoing acute cancer treatment.

Sarah L Grimshaw, Nicholas F Taylor, Rachel Conyers, Nora Shields

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSAMS plus, 2024. 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. 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

4 authors.

Sarah L GrimshawLa Trobe University, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Nicholas F TaylorLa Trobe University, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Rachel ConyersMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Nora ShieldsMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As physical function and physical activity are often compromised among children and adolescents undergoing acute cancer treatment, psychometrically robust and feasible assessment tools are needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the construct validity, responsiveness and feasibility of one physical activity assessment tool (Fitbit Inspire); and six physical function assessment tools (Movement ABC-2, Timed Up and Go, 30-s Chair Stand, Timed Rise from the Floor, Timed Up and Down Stairs, 6-min Walk Test) for children undergoing acute cancer treatment. Methods: A prospectively-registered, mixed methods, single-group study evaluated measurement properties against Results: Twenty children/adolescents (median age 13 ​± ​5 years, various cancer diagnoses), 20 parents and 16 clinicians participated. Fitbit was feasible to assess daily steps only, had evidence of construct validity, tendency to overestimate step count and adequate evidence of responsiveness (compared to Actigraph). The 30-s Chair stand, 6-min Walk Test and Timed Up and Go were feasible and showed evidence of construct validity and responsiveness. To maximise feasibility, consideration of timing and intent of assessment are crucial. Conclusion: Fitbit has limitations as a physical activity assessment tool. The 30-s Chair Stand, 6-min Walk Test and Timed Up and Go were feasible to use and showed favourable measurement properties to assess physical function.

Indexed as

CancerChildCOSMINMeasurement propertiesPhysical activityPhysical function

Identifiers

PMID41878660
PMCPMC13008446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.