Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0276890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276890. eCollection 2022.
This scoping review identified observational studies of adults that utilized accelerometry to assess physical activity and sedentary behavior. Key elements on accelerometry data collection were abstracted to describe current practices and completeness of reporting. We searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus) on June 1, 2021 for articles published up to that date. We included studies of non-institutionalized adults with an analytic sample size of at least 500. The search returned 5686 unique records. After reviewing 1027 full-text publications, we identified and abstracted accelerometry characteristics on 155 unique observational studies (154 cross-sectional/cohort studies and 1 case control study). The countries with the highest number of studies included the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Fewer studies were identified from the continent of Africa. Five of these studies were distributed donor studies, where participants connected their devices to an application and voluntarily shared data with researchers. Data collection occurred between 1999 to 2019. Most studies used one accelerometer (94.2%), but 8 studies (5.2%) used 2 accelerometers and 1 study (0.6%) used 4 accelerometers. Accelerometers were more commonly worn on the hip (48.4%) as compared to the wrist (22.3%), thigh (5.4%), other locations (14.9%), or not reported (9.0%). Overall, 12.7% of the accelerometers collected raw accelerations and 44.6% were worn for 24 hours/day throughout the collection period. The review identified 155 observational studies of adults that collected accelerometry, utilizing a wide range of accelerometer data processing methods. Researchers inconsistently reported key aspects of the process from collection to analysis, which needs addressing to support accurate comparisons across studies.
这篇范围界定综述确定了利用加速度计评估成年人身体活动和久坐行为的观察性研究。从这些研究中提取了加速度计数据收集的关键要素,以描述当前的实践和报告的完整性。我们于 2021 年 6 月 1 日在三个数据库(PubMed、Web of Science 和 SPORTDiscus)中搜索了截至该日期发表的文章。我们纳入了非机构化成年人的分析样本量至少为 500 的研究。搜索返回了 5686 条独特的记录。在审查了 1027 篇全文出版物后,我们确定并提取了 155 项独特观察性研究的加速度计特征(154 项横断面/队列研究和 1 项病例对照研究)。研究数量最多的国家包括美国、英国和日本。来自非洲大陆的研究较少。其中 5 项研究为捐赠研究,参与者将设备连接到应用程序并自愿向研究人员共享数据。数据收集时间为 1999 年至 2019 年。大多数研究使用一个加速度计(94.2%),但有 8 项研究(5.2%)使用了 2 个加速度计,1 项研究(0.6%)使用了 4 个加速度计。加速度计更常见地佩戴在臀部(48.4%),而不是手腕(22.3%)、大腿(5.4%)、其他位置(14.9%)或未报告(9.0%)。总体而言,12.7%的加速度计收集原始加速度,44.6%的加速度计在整个采集期间每天佩戴 24 小时。该综述确定了 155 项成年人的加速度计观察性研究,使用了广泛的加速度计数据处理方法。研究人员在从收集到分析的过程中不一致地报告了关键方面,这需要解决,以支持研究之间的准确比较。
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Epidemiol Rev. 2022-1-14
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019-7-21
Sensors (Basel). 2025-6-9
Healthcare (Basel). 2025-5-7
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2022-5-9