↓ Skip to main content

Variability of total step activity in children with cerebral palsy: influence of definition of a day on participant retention within the study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Variability of total step activity in children with cerebral palsy: influence of definition of a day on participant retention within the study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2218-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nichola C. Wilson, Suzie Mudge, N. Susan Stott

Abstract

Activity monitoring is important to establish accurate daily physical activity levels in children with cerebral palsy (CP). However, few studies address issues around inclusion or exclusion of step count data; in particular, how a valid day should be defined and what impact different lengths of monitoring have on retention of participant data within a study. This study assessed how different 'valid day' definitions influenced inclusion of participant data in final analyses and the subsequent variability of the data. Sixty-nine children with CP were fitted with a StepWatch™ Activity Monitor and instructed to wear it for a week. Data analysis used two broad definitions of a day, based on either number of steps in a 24 h monitoring period or the number of hours of recorded activity in a 24 h monitoring period. Eight children either did not use the monitor, or used it for only 1 day. The remaining 61 children provided 2 valid days of monitoring defined as >100 recorded steps per 24 h period and 55 (90 %) completed 2 valid days of monitoring with ≥10 h recorded activity per 24 h period. Performance variability in daily step count was lower across 2 days of monitoring when a valid day was defined as ≥10 h recorded activity per 24 h period (ICC = 0.765) and, higher when the definition >100 recorded steps per 24 h period (ICC = 0.62). Only 46 participants (75 %) completed 5 days of monitoring with >100 recorded steps per 24 h period and only 23 (38 %) achieved 5 days of monitoring with ≥10 h recorded activity per 24 h period. Datasets of participants who functioned at GMFCS level II were differentially excluded when the criteria for inclusion in final analysis was 5 valid days of ≥10 h recorded activity per 24 h period, leaving datasets available for only 8 of 32 participant datasets retained in the study. We conclude that changes in definition of a valid day have significant impacts on both inclusion of participant data in final analysis and measured variability of total step count.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 8 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,095,005
of 8,296,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#507
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,828
of 254,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#23
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,296,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.