Júdice Pedro B, Santos Diana A, Hamilton Marc T, Sardinha Luís B, Silva Analiza M
Universidade de Lisboa, Exercise and Health Laboratory, Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Human Performance, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Estrada da Costa 1499-002 Cruz-Quebrada, Portugal.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Gait Posture. 2015 May;41(4):917-22. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.03.326. Epub 2015 Mar 30.
Sedentary time, specifically sitting/reclining, is a risk factor for many non-communicable diseases and premature mortality. Inclinometers have been used as a valid measurement of sedentary time and its patterns; however, there is a lack of information regarding the validity of alternative accelerometry and heart rate methods. The validity of GT3X and Actiheart in estimating changes in daily sedentary time and breaks, during free-living settings, using ActivPAL as the reference was examined. A crossover randomized control trial of an intervention that aimed to reduce ∼3 h/day of sitting time included 10 overweight/obese adults (37-65 years). Participants had a total of 74 valid days for the three devices (29 controls; 45 interventions). For ActivPAL, sedentary time was measured directly based upon posture (sitting/reclining); Actiheart, the presumed MET cutpoint for sedentary time (<1.5 METs) based on accelerometry+heart rate; GT3X, the traditional <100countsmin(-1). A break in sedentary time was defined as when the participants were above the aforementioned cutoffs. GT3X overestimated and Actiheart underestimated sedentary time (bias=135min; bias=-156min, respectively) and both methods overestimated breaks in sedentary time (bias=78; bias=235 breaks, respectively). The GT3X method was in better agreement with the ActivPAL sedentary time (r2=0.70; concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)=0.56) than the Actiheart (r2=0.24; CCC=0.31). The present results highlight the magnitude of potential errors in estimating sedentary time and breaks from common alternative methods other than ActivPAL. Because misclassification errors from the commonly used surrogates are potentially large, this raises concern that alternative methods used in many epidemiological observations may have underestimated the true effects caused by too much sitting (ClinicalTrials.govID:NCT02007681).
久坐时间,特别是坐着/斜躺的时间,是许多非传染性疾病和过早死亡的一个风险因素。倾角仪已被用作久坐时间及其模式的有效测量工具;然而,关于替代加速度计和心率方法的有效性缺乏相关信息。本研究以ActivPAL为参考,检验了GT3X和Actiheart在自由生活环境中估计每日久坐时间变化和休息时间的有效性。一项旨在减少每天约3小时久坐时间的干预措施的交叉随机对照试验纳入了10名超重/肥胖成年人(37 - 65岁)。参与者使用这三种设备共有74个有效日(29个对照组;45个干预组)。对于ActivPAL,久坐时间是根据姿势(坐着/斜躺)直接测量的;对于Actiheart,根据加速度计 + 心率得出久坐时间的假定代谢当量切点(<1.5代谢当量);对于GT3X,采用传统的<100计数·分钟⁻¹。久坐时间的中断定义为参与者高于上述切点。GT3X高估了久坐时间,而Actiheart低估了久坐时间(偏差分别为135分钟;偏差 = -156分钟),并且两种方法都高估了久坐时间的中断(偏差分别为78次;偏差为235次)。GT3X方法与ActivPAL久坐时间的一致性(r² = 0.70;一致性相关系数(CCC)= 0.56)优于Actiheart(r² = 0.24;CCC = 0.31)。目前的结果突出了从除ActivPAL之外的常见替代方法估计久坐时间和休息时间时潜在误差的大小。由于常用替代指标的错误分类误差可能很大,这引发了人们对许多流行病学观察中使用的替代方法可能低估了久坐过多所导致的真实影响的担忧(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02007681)。