Alexander H K Montoye1,2, Rebecca W Moore3, Heather R Bowles4, Robert Korycinski4, Karin A Pfeiffer5. 1. Department of Integrative Physiology and Health Science, Alma College, Alma, Michigan, USA. 2. Clinical Exercise Physiology Program, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA. 3. School of Health Promotion and Human Performance, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA. 4. Biometry Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review assessed the completeness of accelerometer reporting in physical activity (PA) intervention studies and assessed factors related to accelerometer reporting. DESIGN: The PubMed database was used to identify manuscripts for inclusion. Included studies were PA interventions that used accelerometers, were written in English and were conducted between 1 January 1998 and 31 July 2014. 195 manuscripts from PA interventions that used accelerometers to measure PA were included. Manuscript completeness was scored using 12 questions focused on 3 accelerometer reporting areas: accelerometer information, data processing and interpretation and protocol non-compliance. Variables, including publication year, journal focus and impact factor, and population studied were evaluated to assess trends in reporting completeness. RESULTS: The number of manuscripts using accelerometers to assess PA in interventions increased from 1 in 2002 to 29 in the first 7 months of 2014. Accelerometer reporting completeness correlated weakly with publication year (r=0.24, p<0.001). Correlations were greater when we assessed improvements over time in reporting data processing in manuscripts published in PA-focused journals (r=0.43, p=0.002) compared to manuscripts published in non-PA-focused journals (r=0.19, p=0.021). Only 7 of 195 (4%) manuscripts reported all components of accelerometer use, and only 132 (68%) reported more than half of the components. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer reporting of PA in intervention studies has been poor and improved only minimally over time. We provide recommendations to improve accelerometer reporting and include a template to standardise reports. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review assessed the completeness of accelerometer reporting in physical activity (PA) intervention studies and assessed factors related to accelerometer reporting. DESIGN: The PubMed database was used to identify manuscripts for inclusion. Included studies were PA interventions that used accelerometers, were written in English and were conducted between 1 January 1998 and 31 July 2014. 195 manuscripts from PA interventions that used accelerometers to measure PA were included. Manuscript completeness was scored using 12 questions focused on 3 accelerometer reporting areas: accelerometer information, data processing and interpretation and protocol non-compliance. Variables, including publication year, journal focus and impact factor, and population studied were evaluated to assess trends in reporting completeness. RESULTS: The number of manuscripts using accelerometers to assess PA in interventions increased from 1 in 2002 to 29 in the first 7 months of 2014. Accelerometer reporting completeness correlated weakly with publication year (r=0.24, p<0.001). Correlations were greater when we assessed improvements over time in reporting data processing in manuscripts published in PA-focused journals (r=0.43, p=0.002) compared to manuscripts published in non-PA-focused journals (r=0.19, p=0.021). Only 7 of 195 (4%) manuscripts reported all components of accelerometer use, and only 132 (68%) reported more than half of the components. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer reporting of PA in intervention studies has been poor and improved only minimally over time. We provide recommendations to improve accelerometer reporting and include a template to standardise reports. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Diego Arguello; Kristie Andersen; Alvin Morton; Patty S Freedson; Stephen S Intille; Dinesh John Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Paul M Coen; Liliana C Baptista; Margaret B Bell; Devin Drummer; Sara A Harper; Manoel E Lixandrão; Jeremy S McAdam; Samia M O'Bryan; Sofhia Ramos; Lisa M Roberts; Rick B Vega; Bret H Goodpaster; Marcas M Bamman; Thomas W Buford Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Caroline M Lisee; Alexander H K Montoye; Noble F Lewallen; Mayrena Hernandez; David R Bell; Christopher M Kuenze Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Grace E Vincent; Sarah M Jay; Corneel Vandelanotte; Sally A Ferguson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Matteo C Sattler; Johannes Jaunig; Christoph Tösch; Estelle D Watson; Lidwine B Mokkink; Pavel Dietz; Mireille N M van Poppel Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Denise J M Smit; Maremka Zwinkels; Tim Takken; Raquel Y Hulst; Janke F de Groot; Kristel Lankhorst; Olaf Verschuren Journal: J Paediatr Child Health Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 1.954
Authors: Maremka Zwinkels; Olaf Verschuren; Astrid Balemans; Kristel Lankhorst; Saskia Te Velde; Leendert van Gaalen; Janke de Groot; Anne Visser-Meily; Tim Takken Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Michael J Duncan; Alexandra Dobell; Mark Noon; Cain C T Clark; Clare M P Roscoe; Mark A Faghy; David Stodden; Ryan Sacko; Emma L J Eyre Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.576