Accelerometer-assessed physical activity in epidemiology: Are monitors equivalent?
journal contributionposted on 24.10.2017 by Alex V. Rowlands, Evgeny M. Mirkes, Thomas E. Yates, Stacy Clemes, Melanie J. Davies, Kamlesh Khunti, Charlotte L. Edwardson
Any type of content formally published in an academic journal, usually following a peer-review process.
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.
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.
- Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences