Evidence mapPaperPMID 39449992Full record

ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2022

Simulation-Based Evaluation of Methods for Handling Nonwear Time in Accelerometer Studies of Physical Activity.

Kristopher I Kapphahn, Jorge A Banda, K Farish Haydel, Thomas N Robinson, Manisha Desai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kristopher I KapphahnQuantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5017-8697
Jorge A BandaDepartment of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
K Farish HaydelStanford Solutions Science Lab, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Thomas N RobinsonStanford Solutions Science Lab, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Manisha DesaiQuantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Novel machine learning and missing data methods for improving estimates of physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep using accelerometer dataR01LM013355 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MANISHA DESAI · 2023 to 2024
$669k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL103629NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accelerometer data are widely used in research to provide objective measurements of physical activity. Frequently, participants may remove accelerometers during their observation period resulting in missing data referred to as nonwear periods. Common approaches for handling nonwear periods include discarding data (days with insufficient hours or individuals with insufficient valid days) from analyses and single imputation (SI) methods. Purpose: This study evaluates the performance of various discard-, SI-, and multiple imputation (MI)-based approaches on the ability to accurately and precisely characterize the relationship between a summarized measure of accelerometer counts (mean counts per minute) and an outcome (body mass index). Methods: Realistic accelerometer data were simulated under various scenarios that induced nonwear. Data were analyzed using common and MI methods for handling nonwear. Bias, relative standard error, relative mean squared error, and coverage probabilities were compared across methods. Results: MI approaches were superior to commonly applied methods, with bias that ranged from -0.001 to -0.028 that was considerably lower than that of discard-based methods (ranging from -0.050 to -0.057) and SI methods (ranging from -0.061 to -0.081). We also reported substantial variation among MI strategies, with coverage probabilities ranging from .04 to .96. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the benefit of applying MI methods over more commonly applied discard- and SI-based approaches. Additionally, we show that how you apply MI matters, where including data from previously observed acceleration measurements in the imputation model when using MI improves model performance.

Indexed as

counts per minutemissing datamobile health datamultiple imputation

Identifiers

PMID39449992
PMCPMC11501082

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.