Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40080301›Full record

ReviewSports medicine - open2025

Methodological Choices on 24-h Movement Behavior Assessment by Accelerometry: A Scoping Review.

Bruno Rodrigues, António Videira-Silva, Luís Lopes, Eduarda Sousa-Sá, Susana Vale, Dylan P Cliff, Romeu Mendes, Rute Santos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

Bruno RodriguesFaculty of Sport, University of Porto (Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure), Porto, Portugal. brunocrodrigues94@gmai.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7377-2488
António Videira-SilvaCIDEFES (Centro de Investigação em Desporto, Educação Física e Exercício e Saúde), Universidade Lusófona, Lisbon, Portugal.
Luís LopesFaculty of Sport, University of Porto (Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure), Porto, Portugal.
Eduarda Sousa-SáFaculty of Sport, University of Porto (Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure), Porto, Portugal.
Susana ValeLaboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health, Porto, Portugal.
Dylan P CliffEarly Start, School of Education, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Romeu MendesPrograma Nacional Para a Promoção de Atividade Física, Direção-Geral da Saúde, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rute SantosResearch Centre in Child Studies, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia CEECIND/01089/2017Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia FCT/UIDB/00617/2020Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia LA/P/0064/2020Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia PTDC/SAU-DES/0166/2021Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UI/BD/150675/2020Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDP/00317/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are no reviews describing current measurement protocols and accelerometer processing decisions that are being used in 24-h MovBeh studies, across the lifespan. We aim to synthesise information on methods for assessing 24-h movement behaviors using accelerometry across all age groups. MAIN BODY: PubMed, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and EMBASE were searched until December 2022. Observational or intervention reports describing accelerometry methods in studies on combinations of movement behaviors, with a 24-h protocol across all ages, were included. This review included 102 studies: three studies in toddlers, 15 in preschoolers, 17 in children, 23 in adolescents and 44 in adults and older adults. The Actigraph GT3X was the most commonly used device; the majority of the included reports collected data for seven days, including three weekdays and one weekend day, with a ≥ 16 h/day per 24-h period for valid data. The criteria for non-wear time varied between ≥ 20 and  ≥ 90 min of consecutive zero counts, depending on the age group. The most common epoch used was 15 or 60 s for youth and adults, respectively. The choice of sleep algorithms and SB/PA cut-points, of the included reports, depended on age and the original validation/calibration study. To deal with non-compliant participants, exclusion of non-compliant participants from the analysis was most frequently used. Most studies used diaries/logs to complement the accelerometer data.

conclusionsAccelerometer protocols and methodological decisions varied considerably between reports. Therefore, consensus on methodological decisions is needed to improve precision and comparability between studies, which is challenging given the complexity of the procedures, the number of available brands and types of accelerometers, and the plethora of programming options.

Indexed as

MethodsPhysical activitySedentary behaviorSleepSurveillanceTime-use

Identifiers

PMID40080301
PMCPMC11906950

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.