Youth/Child Cardiovascular Risk and Environmental (YCARE) Research Group, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Growth, Exercise, NUtrition and Development (GENUD) Research Group, University of Zaragoza, Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón (IA2), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Aragón (IIS Aragón), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Zaragoza, Spain.
Obes Rev. 2018 Jun;19(6):810-824. doi: 10.1111/obr.12676. Epub 2018 Mar 24.
We aimed to provide evidence for an a priori hypothesis and sample size for subjectively assessing physical activity intensity and duration in paediatric population, adopting objective methods as the reference. We searched electronic databases, reference lists and author databases. Correlation coefficients were pooled as an indicator of agreement estimates. We found 183 agreement analyses (94.5% based on correlation coefficients) from 89 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We identified four physical activity parameters addressing intensity and two parameters addressing duration. The physical activity parameters focusing on intensity were measured only by questionnaires, and the best correlation was achieved by moderate-to-vigorous physical activity compared with a heart rate monitor. In addition, total physical activity duration had a stronger correlation with an accelerometer when measured by diaries or logs than when measured by questionnaires. In both cases, the correlation was moderate. Studies with sample sizes between 50 and 99 subjects showed measurements that were stable in both magnitude and interpretation. Our findings suggest that the agreement between subjective and objective methods for assessing physical activity intensity and duration is weak to moderate. Furthermore, sample sizes ranging from 50 to 99 subjects provide stable agreement estimates between methods.
我们旨在为主观评估儿童人群体力活动强度和时间的先验假设和样本量提供证据,采用客观方法作为参考。我们检索了电子数据库、参考文献列表和作者数据库。相关系数被汇总为一致性估计的指标。我们从符合纳入标准的 89 项研究中找到了 183 项一致性分析(基于相关系数的 94.5%)。我们确定了四个针对强度的体力活动参数和两个针对时间的参数。专注于强度的体力活动参数仅通过问卷进行测量,与心率监测器相比,中等到剧烈体力活动的相关性最佳。此外,当使用日记或日志测量时,与使用问卷测量相比,总体力活动时间与加速度计的相关性更强。在这两种情况下,相关性都是中度的。样本量在 50 到 99 名受试者之间的研究显示,两种情况下的测量结果在幅度和解释上都很稳定。我们的研究结果表明,主观和客观方法评估体力活动强度和时间的一致性较弱到中等。此外,样本量在 50 到 99 名受试者之间的方法提供了稳定的一致性估计值。