clemes_Equivalency_final_submitted.pdf (998.25 kB)

Accelerometer-assessed physical activity in epidemiology: Are monitors equivalent?

Download (998.25 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 24.10.2017, 13:50 by Alex V. Rowlands, Evgeny M. Mirkes, Thomas E. Yates, Stacy Clemes, Melanie J. Davies, Kamlesh Khunti, Charlotte L. Edwardson
PURPOSE: Accelerometers are increasingly being used to assess physical activity in large-scale surveys. Establishing whether key physical activity outcomes can be considered equivalent between three widely-used accelerometer brands would be a significant step towards capitalising on the increasing availability of accelerometry data for epidemiological research. METHODS: Twenty participants wore a GENEActiv, Axivity AX3 and ActiGraph GT9X on their non-dominant wrist and were observed for two-hours in a simulated living space. Participants undertook a series of seated and upright light/active behaviours at their own pace. All accelerometer data were processed identically using open-source software (GGIR) to generate physical activity outcomes (including average dynamic acceleration (ACC) and time within intensity cut-points). Data were analysed using pairwise 95% equivalence tests (±10% equivalence zone), intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and limits of agreement. RESULTS: The GENEActiv and Axivity could be considered equivalent for ACC (ICC=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 0.98), but ACC measured by the ActiGraph was approximately 10% lower (ICC: GENEActiv/ActiGraph 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; Axivity/ActiGraph 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94). For time spent within intensity cut-points, all three accelerometers could be considered equivalent to each other for over 85% of outcomes (ICC≥0.69, lower 95% CI≥0.36), with the GENEActiv and Axivity equivalent for 100% of outcomes (ICC≥0.95, lower 95% CI≥0.86). CONCLUSIONS: GENEActiv and Axivity data processed in GGIR are largely equivalent. If comparing GENEActiv or Axivity to the ActiGraph, time spent within intensity cut-points has good agreement. These findings can be used to inform selection of appropriate outcomes if comparing outputs from these accelerometer brands.

Funding

The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at University Hospitals of Leicester and Loughborough University, the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care – East Midlands (NIHR CLAHRC – EM) and the Leicester Clinical Trials Unit.

History

School

  • Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences

Published in

Med Sci Sports Exerc

Citation

ROWLANDS, A.V. ...et al., 2018. Accelerometer-assessed physical activity in epidemiology: Are monitors equivalent? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(2), pp. 257–265.

Publisher

© American College of Sports Medicine

Version

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Publisher statement

This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Acceptance date

22/09/2017

Publication date

2018-02-01

Notes

This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in ROWLANDS, A.V. ...et al., 2018. Accelerometer-assessed physical activity in epidemiology: Are monitors equivalent? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(2), pp. 257–265. The final published version can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001435

eISSN

1530-0315

Language

en

Location

United States

Exports

Logo branding

Keywords

Exports