Suppr超能文献

两种用于测量身体活动和久坐行为的加速度计的比较。

Comparison of two accelerometers for measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

作者信息

Pfister Ted, Matthews Charles E, Wang Qinggang, Kopciuk Karen A, Courneya Kerry, Friedenreich Christine

机构信息

Health Technology Assessment and Adoption, Research Innovation and Analytics Portfolio, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2017 May 12;3(1):e000227. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000227. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

PURPOSE

A central aspect of physical activity and sedentary behaviour research is accurate exposure assessment in the context of disease outcomes. The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the convergent validity and test-retest reliability of the ActiGraph GT3X+ and activPAL3 accelerometers.

METHODS

Participants from the Breast Cancer and Exercise Trial in Alberta (n=266) wore both devices concurrently during waking hours for 7 days. Summary measures of time (hours/day) for physical activity and sedentary behaviour were compared between devices using Student's t-tests. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess or evaluate the mean differences and limits of agreement between monitors, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the test-retest reliability of two 7-day activity monitor administrations separated by 2 weeks (n=29).

RESULTS

When comparing the ActiGraph Vector Magnitude (VM), which incorporates all three axes of movement (x, y, z), and the Vertical Axis (VT), which detects movement on the vertical or y-axis only, with the activPAL3, all measures of physical activity were statistically significantly different. The difference in measured time in sedentary behaviour was not statistically significant different when comparing the activPAL3 and ActiGraph (VT) estimates (p=0.47) but was statistically significant different for activPAL3 compared with ActiGraph (VM) (p<0.001). ICCs were high and consistent for each method across all behaviours, ranging from 0.87 to 0.93, with the exception of moderate activity and moderate-to-vigorous activity by the ActiGraph (VT) at 0.66 and 0.67, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite small mean differences and comparable recordings by both devices at the group level, the precision of estimates between methods was low with wide limits of agreement, suggesting these devices may not be used interchangeably for measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour using common data reduction methods.

摘要

目的

身体活动和久坐行为研究的一个核心方面是在疾病结局背景下进行准确的暴露评估。本研究的主要目的是评估ActiGraph GT3X+和activPAL3加速度计的收敛效度和重测信度。

方法

来自艾伯塔省乳腺癌与运动试验的参与者(n = 266)在清醒时间同时佩戴这两种设备,持续7天。使用学生t检验比较两种设备之间身体活动和久坐行为的时间汇总测量值(小时/天)。Bland-Altman图用于评估或评价监测器之间的平均差异和一致性界限,组内相关系数(ICC)用于评估间隔2周的两次7天活动监测管理的重测信度(n = 29)。

结果

将包含所有三个运动轴(x、y、z)的ActiGraph向量幅度(VM)和仅检测垂直或y轴上运动的垂直轴(VT)与activPAL3进行比较时,所有身体活动测量值在统计学上均有显著差异。比较activPAL3和ActiGraph(VT)估计值时,久坐行为的测量时间差异在统计学上无显著差异(p = 0.47),但与ActiGraph(VM)相比,activPAL3的差异在统计学上有显著差异(p < 0.001)。所有行为的每种方法的ICC都很高且一致,范围从0.87到0.93,但ActiGraph(VT)的中度活动和中度至剧烈活动除外,分别为0.66和0.67。

结论

尽管在组水平上两种设备的平均差异较小且记录结果相当,但方法之间估计的精度较低,一致性界限较宽,这表明使用常见的数据简化方法时,这些设备可能不能互换使用来测量身体活动和久坐行为。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1ba1/5530107/f6891e564236/bmjsem-2017-000227f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验