Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558348›Full record

ArticleDiscover public health2026

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.

Philippa Dall, Dawn A Skelton, Ukachukwu Abaraogu

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Discover public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Philippa DallResearch Centre for Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Dawn A SkeltonResearch Centre for Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Ukachukwu AbaraoguSchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1967-1459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Habitual physical activity (PA) is a fundamental determinant of health, yet its assessment and reporting vary substantially across research studies, creating persistent challenges for evidence synthesis. Systematic reviews that aim to synthesise habitual PA outcomes are frequently hindered by heterogeneity in measurement tools, implementation protocols, outcome metrics, and reporting practices. These heterogeneities complicate decision-making regarding study inclusion, data extraction, data analysis, reduce the reliability of meta-analysis, and limit transparency, comparability, and interpretability of systematic review findings. Drawing on insights from a recent systematic review, this commentary highlights key methodological challenges specific to assessment and reporting of habitual PA within systematic reviews. We argue that the absence of standardised criteria for identifying, screening, and appraising habitual PA measures is a major contributor to these challenges, and undermines transparency, comparability, and interpretability of systematic review findings. To address this gap, we present a protocol for a structured screening guide, describe its conceptual domains, and discuss the need for empirical validation. We call for a collaborative, consensus-driven process to test its reliability, feasibility, and validity before wider adoption. Establishing agreed methodological guidance is essential to strengthen the quality, credibility, and policy relevance of systematic reviews of habitual PA.

Indexed as

Habitual physical activityMeasurement heterogeneityMethodological guidancePhysical activity assessmentSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID42558348
PMCPMC13437575

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.