↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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
#14,386,204
of 24,547,718 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,747
of 4,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,780
of 350,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#36
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,547,718 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 350,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 55% of its contemporaries.