Temple University, Center for Obesity Research and Education, 3223 N Broad St Suite 175, Philadelphia, PA 19140, United States.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2010 Nov;31(6):514-23. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004. Epub 2010 Aug 17.
This paper describes the application of best practice recommendations for using accelerometers in a physical activity (PA) intervention trial, and the concordance of different methods for measuring PA. A subsample (n = 63; 26%) of the 239 healthy, sedentary adults participating in a PA trial (mean age = 47.5; 82% women) wore the ActiGraph monitor at all 3 assessment time points. ActiGraph data were compared with self-report (i.e., PA weekly recall and monthly log) and fitness variables. Correlations between the PA recall and ActiGraph for moderate intensity activity ranged from 0.16-0.48 and from 0.28-0.42 for vigorous intensity activity. ActiGraph and fitness [estimated VO(2)(ml/kg/min)] had correlations of 0.15-0.45. The ActiGraph and weekly self-report were significantly correlated at all time points (correlations ranged from 0.23 to 0.44). In terms of detecting intervention effects, intervention groups recorded more minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA on the ActiGraph than the control group at 6 months (min = 46.47, 95% CI = 14.36-78.58), but not at 12 months. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and only 3 days of ActiGraph monitoring. To obtain optimal results with accelerometers in clinical trials, the authors recommend following best practice recommendations: detailed protocols for monitor use, calibration of monitors and validation of data quality, and use of validated equations for analysis. The ActiGraph has modest concordance with other assessment tools and is sensitive to change over time. However, until more information validating the use of accelerometry in clinical trials becomes available, properly administered self-report measures of PA should remain part of the assessment battery.
本文介绍了在体力活动（PA）干预试验中使用加速度计的最佳实践建议的应用，以及不同方法测量 PA 的一致性。在一项 PA 试验中，有 239 名健康、久坐的成年人（平均年龄 = 47.5；82%为女性）中的一个子样本（n = 63；26%）在所有 3 个评估时间点都佩戴了 ActiGraph 监测器。将 ActiGraph 数据与自我报告（即每周体力活动回忆和每月日志）和健身变量进行了比较。中等强度活动的体力活动回忆和 ActiGraph 之间的相关性在 0.16-0.48 之间，剧烈强度活动的相关性在 0.28-0.42 之间。ActiGraph 和健身[估计 VO₂（ml/kg/min）]的相关性在 0.15-0.45 之间。ActiGraph 和每周自我报告在所有时间点都有显著相关性（相关性在 0.23 到 0.44 之间）。在检测干预效果方面，与对照组相比，干预组在 6 个月时（最小值=46.47，95%CI=14.36-78.58）记录的至少中等强度 PA 分钟数更多，但在 12 个月时则不然。研究的局限性包括样本量小，以及仅使用 ActiGraph 监测 3 天。为了在临床试验中获得最佳的加速度计结果，作者建议遵循最佳实践建议：使用监测器的详细方案、监测器的校准和数据质量的验证，以及使用验证的分析方程。ActiGraph 与其他评估工具具有中等一致性，并且随着时间的推移变化敏感。然而，在获得更多验证临床试验中使用加速度计的信息之前，经过适当管理的 PA 自我报告测量仍应成为评估组合的一部分。
