ArticleTrials2021
A framework for handling missing accelerometer outcome data in trials.
Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adherence to Actigraphic Devices in Elementary School-Aged Children: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Designing digital health interventions with causal inference and multi-armed bandits: a review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Unleashing the full potential of digital outcome measures in clinical trials: eight questions that need attention.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Digital endpoints in clinical trials: emerging themes from a multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event.Trials · 2024Article
- Examining Associations Between Smartphone Use and Clinical Severity in Frontotemporal Dementia: Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Effects of physiotherapy and home-based training in parkinsonian syndromes: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (MobilityAPP).BMJ open · 2024Article
- Wearable Sensors as a Preoperative Assessment Tool: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- acc: An R package to process, visualize, and analyze accelerometer data.Software impacts · 2023Article
- Multiple imputation approaches for epoch-level accelerometer data in trials.Statistical methods in medical research · 2023Article
- The 24-Hour Movement Paradigm: An integrated approach to the measurement and promotion of daily activity in cancer clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Simulation-Based Evaluation of Methods for Handling Nonwear Time in Accelerometer Studies of Physical Activity.Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour · 2022Article
- The feasibility of patient-reported outcomes, physical function, and mobilization in the care pathway for head and neck cancer surgical patients.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Methods for Wearable-Derived Pulse Rate Measures and Their Application to Modeling the Relationship between Pulse Rate and Motor Activity in Narcolepsy Type 1.Digital biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accelerometers and other wearable devices are increasingly being used in clinical trials to provide an objective measure of the impact of an intervention on physical activity. Missing data are ubiquitous in this setting, typically for one of two reasons: patients may not wear the device as per protocol, and/or the device may fail to collect data (e.g. flat battery, water damage). However, it is not always possible to distinguish whether the participant stopped wearing the device, or if the participant is wearing the device but staying still. Further, a lack of consensus in the literature on how to aggregate the data before analysis (hourly, daily, weekly) leads to a lack of consensus in how to define a "missing" outcome. Different trials have adopted different definitions (ranging from having insufficient step counts in a day, through to missing a certain number of days in a week). We propose an analysis framework that uses wear time to define missingness on the epoch and day level, and propose a multiple imputation approach, at the day level, which treats partially observed daily step counts as right censored. This flexible approach allows the inclusion of auxiliary variables, and is consistent with almost all the primary analysis models described in the literature, and readily allows sensitivity analysis (to the missing at random assumption) to be performed. Having presented our framework, we illustrate its application to the analysis of the 2019 MOVE-IT trial of motivational interviewing to increase exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.