University of Leicester
Browse
Rowlands_et_al_2017_Equivalency_final_submitted.pdf (1.03 MB)

Accelerometer-assessed Physical Activity in Epidemiology: Are Monitors Equivalent?

Download (1.03 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2017-11-17, 16:13 authored by Alex V. Rowlands, Evgeny M. Mirkes, Tom Yates, Stacey Clemes, Melanie 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

Citation

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2017

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF LIFE SCIENCES/School of Medicine/Diabetes Research Centre

Version

  • AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Publisher

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)

issn

0195-9131

eissn

1530-0315

Copyright date

2017

Available date

2018-10-02

Publisher version

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Accelerometer_assessed_Physical_Activity_in.97105.aspx

Notes

The file associated with this record is under embargo until 12 months after publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.

Language

en

Usage metrics

    University of Leicester Publications

    Categories

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC