van Loo Christiana M T, Okely Anthony D, Batterham Marijka J, Hinkley Trina, Ekelund Ulf, Brage Søren, Reilly John J, Peoples Gregory E, Jones Rachel A, Janssen Xanne, Cliff Dylan P
Early Start Research Institute, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia.
Early Start Research Institute, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia.
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Jan;20(1):55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.04.010. Epub 2016 May 6.
This study aimed to validate SenseWear Mini software algorithm versions 2.2 (SW2.2) and 5.2 (SW5.2) for estimating energy expenditure (EE) in children.
Laboratory-based validation study.
57 children aged 5-12 y completed a protocol involving 15 semi-structured sedentary (SED), light-intensity (LPA), and moderate- to vigorous-intensity (MVPA) physical activities. EE was estimated using portable indirect calorimetry (IC). The accuracy of EE estimates (kcal·min) from SW2.2 and SW5.2 were examined at the group level and individual level using the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), Bland-Altman plots and equivalence testing.
MAPE values were lower for SW5.2 (30.1±10.7%) than for SW2.2 (44.0±6.2%). Although mean differences for SW5.2 were smaller than for SW2.2 during SED (-0.23±0.22 vs. -0.61±0.20kcal·min), LPA (-0.69±0.76 vs. -1.07±0.46kcal·min) and MVPA (-2.22±1.15 vs. -2.57±1.15kcal·min), limits of agreement did not decrease for the updated algorithms. For all activities, SW2.2 and SW5.2 were not equivalent to IC (p>0.05). Errors increased with increasing intensity.
The current SenseWear Mini algorithms SW5.2 underestimated EE. The overall improved accuracy for SW5.2 was not accompanied with improved accuracy at the individual level and EE estimates were not equivalent to IC.
本研究旨在验证SenseWear Mini软件算法版本2.2(SW2.2)和5.2(SW5.2)在估算儿童能量消耗(EE)方面的有效性。
基于实验室的验证研究。
57名5至12岁的儿童完成了一项包含15种半结构化久坐(SED)、轻度强度(LPA)和中度至剧烈强度(MVPA)身体活动的方案。使用便携式间接测热法(IC)估算EE。使用平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)、Bland-Altman图和等效性检验在组水平和个体水平上检查SW2.2和SW5.2估算EE(千卡·分钟)的准确性。
SW5.2的MAPE值(30.1±10.7%)低于SW2.2(44.0±6.2%)。虽然在SED期间SW5.2的平均差异小于SW2.2(-0.23±0.22 vs. -0.61±0.20千卡·分钟)、LPA期间(-0.69±0.76 vs. -1.07±0.46千卡·分钟)和MVPA期间(-2.22±1.15 vs. -2.57±1.15千卡·分钟),但更新后的算法一致性界限并未降低。对于所有活动,SW2.2和SW5.2与IC不等效(p>0.05)。误差随强度增加而增大。
当前的SenseWear Mini算法SW5.2低估了EE。SW5.2总体准确性的提高并未伴随着个体水平准确性的提高,且EE估算值与IC不等效。