OBJECTIVE: To use the most recent ActiGraph model (GT9X) to compare counts per minute (CPM) estimates between wrist-worn and waist-worn attachment sites. METHODS: Participants completed 2 conditions (laboratory [N = 13] and free-living conditions [N = 9]), in which during both of these conditions they wore 2 ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers on their nondominant wrist (side-by-side) and 2 ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers on their right hip in line with the midaxillary line (side-by-side). During the laboratory visit, participants completed 5 treadmill-based trials all lasting 5 min: walk at 3 mph, 3.5 mph, 4 mph, and a jog at 6 mph and 6.5 mph. During the free-living setting, participants wore the monitors for 8 hours. Paired t test, Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were employed to evaluate agreement of CPM between the attachment sites. RESULTS: Across all intensity levels and setting (laboratory and free-living), CPM were statistically significantly and substantively different between waist- and wrist-mounted accelerometry. CONCLUSION: Attachment site drastically influences CPM. As such, extreme caution should be exercised when comparing CPM estimates among studies employing different attachment site methodologies, particularly waist versus wrist.
OBJECTIVE: To use the most recent ActiGraph model (GT9X) to compare counts per minute (CPM) estimates between wrist-worn and waist-worn attachment sites. METHODS:Participants completed 2 conditions (laboratory [N = 13] and free-living conditions [N = 9]), in which during both of these conditions they wore 2 ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers on their nondominant wrist (side-by-side) and 2 ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers on their right hip in line with the midaxillary line (side-by-side). During the laboratory visit, participants completed 5 treadmill-based trials all lasting 5 min: walk at 3 mph, 3.5 mph, 4 mph, and a jog at 6 mph and 6.5 mph. During the free-living setting, participants wore the monitors for 8 hours. Paired t test, Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were employed to evaluate agreement of CPM between the attachment sites. RESULTS: Across all intensity levels and setting (laboratory and free-living), CPM were statistically significantly and substantively different between waist- and wrist-mounted accelerometry. CONCLUSION: Attachment site drastically influences CPM. As such, extreme caution should be exercised when comparing CPM estimates among studies employing different attachment site methodologies, particularly waist versus wrist.
Authors: Carmina G Valle; Bernardine M Pinto; Jessica Gokee LaRose; Molly Diamond; Lindsey N Horrell; Brooke T Nezami; Karen E Hatley; Erin M Coffman; Kristen Polzien; Derek P Hales; Allison M Deal; Christine M Rini; Donald L Rosenstein; Deborah F Tate Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Daniel Polsky; Dylan S Small; Sae-Hwan Park; Chalanda N Evans; Tory Harrington; Rachel Djaraher; Sujatha Changolkar; Christopher K Snider; Kevin G Volpp Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-12-21
Authors: Tracy E Crane; Meghan B Skiba; Austin Miller; David O Garcia; Cynthia A Thomson Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Manuel Ávila-García; María Esojo-Rivas; Emilio Villa-González; Pablo Tercedor; Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390