↓ Skip to main content

Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
198 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
399 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
Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-9-84
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans Van Remoortel, Santiago Giavedoni, Yogini Raste, Chris Burtin, Zafeiris Louvaris, Elena Gimeno-Santos, Daniel Langer, Alastair Glendenning, Nicholas S Hopkinson, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Barry T Peterson, Frederick Wilson, Bridget Mann, Roberto Rabinovich, Milo A Puhan, Thierry Troosters

Abstract

The assessment of physical activity in healthy populations and in those with chronic diseases is challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors (AM) have been appropriately validated for use in assessing physical activity in these groups. Following a systematic literature search we found 134 papers meeting the inclusion criteria; 40 conducted in a field setting (validation against doubly labelled water), 86 in a laboratory setting (validation against a metabolic cart, metabolic chamber) and 8 in a field and laboratory setting. Correlation coefficients between AM outcomes and energy expenditure (EE) by the criterion method (doubly labelled water and metabolic cart/chamber) and percentage mean differences between EE estimation from the monitor and EE measurement by the criterion method were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool the results across studies where possible. Types of devices were compared using meta-regression analyses. Most validation studies had been performed in healthy adults (n=118), with few carried out in patients with chronic diseases (n=16). For total EE, correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices. For active EE, correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices. Uniaxial devices tended to underestimate TEE (-12.07 (95%CI; -18.28 to -5.85) %) compared to triaxial (-6.85 (95%CI; -18.20 to 4.49) %, p=0.37) and were statistically significantly less accurate than multisensor devices (-3.64 (95%CI; -8.97 to 1.70) %, p<0.001). TEE was underestimated during slow walking speeds in 69% of the lab validation studies compared to 37%, 30% and 37% of the studies during intermediate, fast walking speed and running, respectively. The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome. Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors. Since activity monitors are less accurate at slow walking speeds and information about validated activity monitors in chronic disease populations is lacking, proper validation studies in these populations are needed prior to their inclusion in clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 3 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 377 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 21%
Researcher 60 15%
Student > Master 53 13%
Student > Bachelor 52 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 5%
Other 83 21%
Unknown 46 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 27%
Sports and Recreations 51 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 10%
Engineering 24 6%
Computer Science 20 5%
Other 76 19%
Unknown 79 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,977,627
of 18,499,920 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,029
of 1,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,052
of 136,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#8
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,499,920 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 136,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.