Suppr超能文献

通过目视检查确定佩戴加速度计的天数:这有效吗?

Visual Inspection for Determining Days When Accelerometer Is Worn: Is This Valid?

作者信息

Shiroma Eric J, Kamada Masamitsu, Smith Colby, Harris Tamara B, Lee I-Min

机构信息

1Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; 2National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; and 3Department of Health Promotion and Exercise, National Institute of Health and Nutrition, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN.

出版信息

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Dec;47(12):2558-62. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000725.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Logs have been traditionally used for ascertaining accelerometer wear days in mail study designs, but not all participants complete logs. Visual inspection of accelerometer output may supplement missing logs; however, no data on the validity of this method are available.

METHODS

We compared visual inspection with participant logs in 197 women (mean age, 71.0 yr). Women were mailed an accelerometer to be worn during waking hours for 7 d, marking each wear day on a log before returning the accelerometer by mail. For every participant, we created a series of graphs of accelerometer counts by time of day (one chart for each day with accelerometer output, including mail days). Two raters, masked to log wear status, independently inspected these graphs and scored each day as "worn" or "not worn."

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) number of valid wear days using either visual inspection or log was 7 (7-7). For rater 1, the sensitivity and specificity of visual inspection was 99.7% (95% confidence interval, 99.2%-99.9%) and 97.2% (95.2%-98.6%), respectively; for rater 2, the sensitivity and specificity of visual inspection was 99.7% (99.2%-99.9%) and 97.0% (94.9%-98.4%), respectively. Interrater agreement was 99.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Visual inspection of accelerometer data is a valid alternative to missing participant wear logs when determining wear days in mail study designs.

摘要

目的

在邮寄研究设计中,日志传统上用于确定加速度计的佩戴天数,但并非所有参与者都会填写日志。对加速度计输出进行目视检查可能会补充缺失的日志;然而,目前尚无关于该方法有效性的数据。

方法

我们比较了197名女性(平均年龄71.0岁)的目视检查结果与参与者日志。给这些女性邮寄了一个加速度计,要求她们在清醒时间佩戴7天,并在通过邮件返还加速度计之前,在日志上标记每一天的佩戴情况。对于每一位参与者,我们按一天中的时间创建了一系列加速度计计数图表(每个有加速度计输出的日子都有一张图表,包括邮寄日)。两名评分者在不知道日志佩戴状态的情况下,独立检查这些图表,并将每一天评为“佩戴”或“未佩戴”。

结果

使用目视检查或日志记录的有效佩戴天数的中位数(四分位间距)为7(7 - 7)。对于评分者1,目视检查的灵敏度和特异度分别为99.7%(95%置信区间,99.2% - 99.9%)和97.2%(95.2% - 98.6%);对于评分者2,目视检查的灵敏度和特异度分别为99.7%(99.2% - 99.9%)和97.0%(94.9% - 98.4%)。评分者间一致性为99.5%。

结论

在邮寄研究设计中确定佩戴天数时,对加速度计数据进行目视检查是替代缺失的参与者佩戴日志的有效方法。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
Evolution of accelerometer methods for physical activity research.用于身体活动研究的加速度计方法的演变
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jul;48(13):1019-23. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093546. Epub 2014 Apr 29.
10
Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors.活动监测仪的验证与比较。
J Sci Med Sport. 2011 Sep;14(5):411-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003. Epub 2011 May 25.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验