CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 415Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsCardiovascular and exercise physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 489 of the 490 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic literature review of reviews on techniques for physical activity measurement in adults: a DEDIPAC study

Open access
Dowd, Kieran P., Szeklicki, Robert, Minetto, Marco Alessandro, Murphy, Marie H., Polito, Angela, Ghigo, Ezio, van der Ploeg, Hidde, Ekelund, Ulf, Maciaszek, Janusz, Stemplewski, Rafal, Tomczak, Maciej, Donnelly, Alan E.·2018·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0636-2PMC PMC5806271
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The links between increased participation in Physical Activity (PA) and improvements in health are well established. As this body of evidence has grown, so too has the search for measures of PA with high levels of methodological effectiveness (i.e. validity, reliability and responsiveness to change). The aim of this "review of reviews" was to provide a comprehensive overview of the methodological effectiveness of currently employed measures of PA, to aid researchers in their selection of an appropriate tool. A total of 63 review articles were included in this review, and the original articles cited by these reviews were included in order to extract detailed information on methodological effectiveness.Self-report measures of PA have been most frequently examined for methodological effectiveness, with highly variable findings identified across a broad range of behaviours. The evidence-base for the methodological effectiveness of objective monitors, particularly accelerometers/activity monitors, is increasing, with lower levels of variability observed for validity and reliability when compared to subjective measures. Unfortunately, responsiveness to change across all measures and behaviours remains under-researched, with limited information available.Other criteria beyond methodological effectiveness often influence tool selection, including cost and feasibility. However, researchers must be aware of the methodological effectiveness of any measure selected for use when examining PA. Although no "perfect" tool for the examination of PA in adults exists, it is suggested that researchers aim to incorporate appropriate objective measures, specific to the behaviours of interests, when examining PA in free-living environments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12966-017-0636-2

Cites

489 of 489 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram for search and inclusion process for identification of review articles
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram for search and inclusion process for identification of review articlesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Forest plot of percentage mean difference between self-reported energy expenditure (TEE, PAEE, PAL) compared to criterion measure of energy expenditure (doubly labelled water)
Fig. 2 Forest plot of percentage mean difference between self-reported energy expenditure (TEE, PAEE, PAL) compared to criterion measure of energy expenditure (doubly labelled water)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 a Forest plot of percentage mean difference between accelerometer determined energy expenditure (TEE, PAEE, PAL) compared to criterion measure of energy expenditure (doubly labelled water). b Forest plot of percentage mean difference between accelerometer determined steps, distance walked and activity type compared to criterion measure of direct observation
Fig. 3 a Forest plot of percentage mean difference between accelerometer determined energy expenditure (TEE, PAEE, PAL) compared to criterion measure of energy expenditure (doubly labelled water). b Forest plot of percentage mean difference between accelerometer determined steps, distance walked and activity type compared to criterion measure of direct observationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Forest plot of mean percentage difference between pedometer determined step count/energy expenditure compared to criterion measure (direct observation/doubly labelled water respectively). * denotes multiple devices compared in the same study
Fig. 4 Forest plot of mean percentage difference between pedometer determined step count/energy expenditure compared to criterion measure (direct observation/doubly labelled water respectively). * denotes multiple devices compared in the same studyCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Forest plot of percentage mean difference between heart rate monitor determined energy expenditure/physical activity level compared to criterion measure (doubly labelled water)
Fig. 5 Forest plot of percentage mean difference between heart rate monitor determined energy expenditure/physical activity level compared to criterion measure (doubly labelled water)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Forest plot of percentage mean difference between energy expenditure/body posture determined by combined sensors compared to criterion measure (doubly labelled water/direct observation)
Fig. 6 Forest plot of percentage mean difference between energy expenditure/body posture determined by combined sensors compared to criterion measure (doubly labelled water/direct observation)CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 490 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, et al. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161:389–98. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ayen TG, Montoye HJ. Estimation of energy expenditure with a simulated three-dimensional accelerometer. Journal of Ambulatory Monitoring. 1988;1:293–301.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–415 of 415

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dowd, K. P., Szeklicki, R., Minetto, M. A., Murphy, M. H., Polito, A., Ghigo, E., van der Ploeg, H., Ekelund, U., Maciaszek, J., Stemplewski, R., Tomczak, M., & Donnelly, A. E.
Affiliations
  • Athlone Institute of Technology (IE)
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Nutrizione (IT)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Limerick (IE)
Corresponding author
Donnelly, Alan E.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-02-08
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12966-017-0636-2
PMC
PMC5806271
OpenAlex
W2787504438
Cited by
385
References
490
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 10
FWCI
5.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Research@THEA (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
Health Research Board
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
physical activity measurement, validity, reliability statistics, responsiveness to change, self-report questionnaire, accelerometer, wearable activity trackers, adults, free-living physical activity, tool selection
MeSH terms
Adult, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Self Report, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review