Equivalency of four research‑grade movement sensors to assess movement behaviors and its implications for population surveillance
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Hidalgo Migueles, Jairo; Molina García, Pablo; Torres López, Lucía Victoria; Cadenas Sánchez, Cristina; Ortega Porcel, Francisco BartoloméEditorial
Nature
Fecha
2022-04-01Referencia bibliográfica
Migueles, J.H... [et al.]. Equivalency of four research-grade movement sensors to assess movement behaviors and its implications for population surveillance. Sci Rep 12, 5525 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09469-2]
Patrocinador
European Commission 667302; Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life & Welfare (Forte) 2021-00036; Spanish Government FJC2018-037925-I FPU17/04802; NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre; NIHR Collaboration for leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East Midlands; University of Granada, Plan Propio de Investigacion 2016, Excellence actions: Units of Excellence; Scientific Excellence Unit on Exercise and Health (UCEENS); European Commission SOMM17/6107/UGR; SAMID III network, RETICS - PN I + D+I 2017-2021 (Spain); ISCIII- Sub-Directorate General for Research Assessment and Promotion; European Commission RD16/0022; EXERNET Research Network on Exercise and Health DEP2005-00046/ACTI 09/UPB/19 45/UPB/20 27/UPB/21Resumen
The benefits of physical activity (PA) and sleep for health, accurate and objective population-based
surveillance is important. Monitor-based surveillance has potential, but the main challenge is the
need for replicable outcomes from different monitors. This study investigated the agreement of
movement behavior outcomes assessed with four research-grade activity monitors (i.e., Movisens
Move4, ActiGraph GT3X+, GENEActiv, and Axivity AX3) in adults. Twenty-three participants wore four
monitors on the non-dominant wrist simultaneously for seven days. Open-source software (GGIR)
was used to estimate the daily time in sedentary, light, moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), and sleep
(movement behaviors). The prevalence of participants meeting the PA and sleep recommendations
were calculated from each monitor’s data. Outcomes were deemed equivalent between monitors if
the absolute standardized difference and its 95% confidence intervals (
CI95%) fell within ± 0.2 standard
deviations (SD) of the mean of the differences. The participants were mostly men (n = 14, 61%) and
aged 36 (SD = 14) years. Pairwise confusion matrices showed that 83–87% of the daily time was equally
classified into the movement categories by the different pairs of monitors. The between-monitor
difference in MVPA ranged from 1 (
CI95%: − 6, 7) to 8 (
CI95%: 1, 15) min/day. Most of the PA and sleep
metrics could be considered equivalent. The prevalence of participants meeting the PA and the sleep
guidelines was 100% consistent across monitors (22 and 5 participants out of the 23, respectively).
Our findings indicate that the various research-grade activity monitors investigated show high
inter-instrument reliability with respect to sedentary, PA and sleep-related estimates when their
raw data are processed in an identical manner. These findings may have important implications for
advancement towards monitor-based PA and sleep surveillance systems.