Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42384116›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2026

Synthesis and Validity of Accelerometer Devices and Methods Used in Epidemiological Studies of Physical Activity Bout Duration and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Adrien Chanteau, Germain Faity, Guillaume Mahe, Séverine Sabia, Alexis Le Faucheur

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2026. 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.

Adrien ChanteauM2S (Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé), Univ Rennes, F-35000, Rennes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9934-9866
Germain FaityM2S (Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé), Univ Rennes, F-35000, Rennes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6855-8938
Guillaume MaheM2S (Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé), Univ Rennes, F-35000, Rennes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1318-4745
Séverine SabiaU1153, CRESS, Epidemiology of Ageing and Neurodegenerative Diseases, Université Paris Cité, INSERM, F-75010, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3109-9720
Alexis Le FaucheurM2S (Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé), Univ Rennes, F-35000, Rennes, France. alexis.lefaucheur@ens-rennes.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3688-6574

Funding

European Union ERC grant number 101043884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA paradigm shift in physical activity (PA) research and recommendations emerged in the most recent guidelines, which now emphasize that all physical activity bouts count,irrespective of their duration. Nevertheless, the validity of accelerometer devices and methods for detecting PA bouts of any duration, as considered in studies underpinning the PA guidelines on bout duration and health, remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to systematically analyze the validity level of accelerometer devices and methods that have been used in epidemiological studies on the association between PA bout duration and health outcomes.

methodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and employed a two-step search strategy. First, we identified the existing body of evidence on PA bout duration and health by updating the systematic search originally performed for the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee scientific report and subsequently expanded by Jakicic et al. Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane) were searched up to 14 November 2024. The second and final step, which constituted the primary focus of this review, was to retrieve and systematically evaluate the underlying validity studies cited in these epidemiological investigations, with risk of bias assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool.

resultsA total of 48 epidemiological studies were included. Analysis of device type, position, epoch duration, drop time, bout duration, and start year of study data collection revealed 113 methodological instances, representing 68 unique combinations, underscoring the heterogeneity in practice. Among the 48 epidemiological studies, 26 validation studies were referenced, and only four were deemed suitable for addressing bout performance detection, accounting for less than 20% of epidemiological studies. For those four studies, the overall study risk of bias was ranked as "High" or with "some concerns".

conclusionsBetter accuracy and harmonization of accelerometer devices and methods are crucial for broader adoption in national health surveillance systems, ensuring comparability of results and facilitating global knowledge. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023394705).

Indexed as

Accelerometry (MeSH)Epidemiology (MeSH)Methods (MeSH)Physical activity (MeSH)Wearable devices (MeSH)

Identifiers

PMID42384116
PMCPMC13323697

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.