Erin K Howie1, Leon M Straker2. 1. School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Australia. Electronic address: Erin.Howie@curtin.edu.au. 2. School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this brief review was to describe the missingness, from both attrition and non-compliance, during physical activity randomized controlled trials among children which have used accelerometers to measure physical activity. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Using a previously published search strategy, an updated search of the literature was performed in the MEDLINE database for articles published from 1996 to February 2015 identifying physical activity RCTs in children (ages 2-18) measuring physical activity using accelerometers. Rates of attrition and non-compliance were extracted from identified articles. Twenty-three independent studies provided complete attrition and non-compliance data and were included. RESULTS: The mean attrition rate was 11.5% (SD 10.1%, range 0-30.9%). The mean accelerometer non-compliance rate at baseline was 22.7% (SD 16.4%, range 1.7-67.8%) and 29.6% (SD 19.4%, range 3.3-70.1%) at follow-up. The mean total study missingness was 37.4% (SD 20.2%, range 3.3-75.4%) and ranged from 3.3% to 75.4%. There was large variation in how missingness was accounted for between studies. There were no statistically significant differences in missingness between study characteristics including sample size, participant age, intervention setting, duration of follow-up, whether physical activity was the primary outcome, and weartime compliance criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Missingness is common among randomized controlled trials using accelerometry in children and is currently handled inconsistently. Researchers must plan for high levels of missingness in study design and account for missingness in reporting and analyses of trial outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this brief review was to describe the missingness, from both attrition and non-compliance, during physical activity randomized controlled trials among children which have used accelerometers to measure physical activity. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Using a previously published search strategy, an updated search of the literature was performed in the MEDLINE database for articles published from 1996 to February 2015 identifying physical activity RCTs in children (ages 2-18) measuring physical activity using accelerometers. Rates of attrition and non-compliance were extracted from identified articles. Twenty-three independent studies provided complete attrition and non-compliance data and were included. RESULTS: The mean attrition rate was 11.5% (SD 10.1%, range 0-30.9%). The mean accelerometer non-compliance rate at baseline was 22.7% (SD 16.4%, range 1.7-67.8%) and 29.6% (SD 19.4%, range 3.3-70.1%) at follow-up. The mean total study missingness was 37.4% (SD 20.2%, range 3.3-75.4%) and ranged from 3.3% to 75.4%. There was large variation in how missingness was accounted for between studies. There were no statistically significant differences in missingness between study characteristics including sample size, participant age, intervention setting, duration of follow-up, whether physical activity was the primary outcome, and weartime compliance criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Missingness is common among randomized controlled trials using accelerometry in children and is currently handled inconsistently. Researchers must plan for high levels of missingness in study design and account for missingness in reporting and analyses of trial outcomes.
Authors: Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Richard A Washburn; J Leon Greene; Lauren T Ptomey; Anna Gorczyca; Robert H Lee; Todd D Little; Jaehoon Lee; Jeff Honas; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Stuart J Fairclough; Bronagh McGrane; George Sanders; Sarah Taylor; Michael Owen; Whitney Curry Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kirsten Corder; Stephen J Sharp; Stephanie T Jong; Campbell Foubister; Helen Elizabeth Brown; Emma K Wells; Sofie M Armitage; Caroline H D Croxson; Anna Vignoles; Paul O Wilkinson; Edward C F Wilson; Esther M F van Sluijs Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Kirsten Corder; André O Werneck; Stephanie T Jong; Erin Hoare; Helen Elizabeth Brown; Campbell Foubister; Paul O Wilkinson; Esther Mf van Sluijs Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Scott Duncan; Tom Stewart; Lisa Mackay; Jono Neville; Anantha Narayanan; Caroline Walker; Sarah Berry; Susan Morton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.390