...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Gait & posture >Validity of GT3X and Actiheart to estimate sedentary time and breaks using ActivPAL as the reference in free-living conditions
【24h】

Validity of GT3X and Actiheart to estimate sedentary time and breaks using ActivPAL as the reference in free-living conditions

机译：GT3X和Actiheart在自由活动条件下使用ActivPAL作为参考来估计久坐时间和休息时间的有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Sedentary time, specifically sitting/reclining, is a risk factor for many non-communicable diseases and premature mortality. Inclinometers have been used as a valid measurement of sedentary time and its patterns; however, there is a lack of information regarding the validity of alternative accelerometry and heart rate methods. The validity of GT3X and Actiheart in estimating changes in daily sedentary time and breaks, during free-living settings, using ActivPAL as the reference was examined. A crossover randomized control trial of an intervention that aimed to reduce similar to 3 h/day of sitting time included 10 overweight/obese adults (37-65 years). Participants had a total of 74 valid days for the three devices (29 controls; 45 interventions). For ActivPAL, sedentary time was measured directly based upon posture (sitting/reclining); Actiheart, the presumed MET cutpoint for sedentary time (<1.5 METs) based on accelerometry + heart rate; GT3X, the traditional <100 counts min(-1). A break in sedentary time was defined as when the participants were above the aforementioned cutoffs. GT3X overestimated and Actiheart underestimated sedentary time (bias = 135 min; bias = 156 min, respectively) and both methods overestimated breaks in sedentary time (bias = 78; bias = 235 breaks, respectively). The GT3X method was in better agreement with the ActivPAL sedentary time (r(2) = 0.70; concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.56) than the Actiheart (r(2) = 0.24; CCC = 0.31). The present results highlight the magnitude of potential errors in estimating sedentary time and breaks from common alternative methods other than ActivPAL. Because misclassification errors from the commonly used surrogates are potentially large, this raises concern that alternative methods used in many epidemiological observations may have underestimated the true effects caused by too much sitting (ClinicalTrials.govID: NCT02007681). (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译：久坐时间，特别是坐着/斜躺，是造成许多非传染性疾病和过早死亡的危险因素。测斜仪已被用作久坐时间及其模式的有效测量方法。但是，关于替代性加速度计和心率法有效性的信息不足。使用ActivPAL作为参考，研究了GT3X和Actiheart在估计自由活动期间每日久坐时间和休息时间变化的有效性。一项旨在减少类似于每天3小时的就座时间的干预措施的交叉随机对照试验包括10名超重/肥胖成年人（37-65岁）。参加者对于这三种设备总共有74个有效日（29个对照; 45个干预）。对于ActivPAL，久坐时间直接根据姿势（坐着/斜躺）进行测量; Actiheart，根据加速度计+心率计算的久坐时间（<1.5 METs）的MET临界点; GT3X，传统的<100计数最小值（-1）。久坐时间的休息被定义为参与者超出上述临界值的时间。 GT3X高估了静止时间，Actiheart低估了久坐时间（偏差= 135分钟;偏差= 156分钟），两种方法都高估了久坐时间的中断（偏差= 78;偏差= 235中断）。 GT3X方法与ActivPAL久坐时间（r（2）= 0.70;一致性相关系数（CCC）= 0.56）比Actiheart（r（2）= 0.24; CCC = 0.31）更好。本研究结果突出了估计久坐时间时潜在误差的严重性，并突破了除ActivPAL之外的其他常用方法。由于来自常用替代方法的错误分类错误可能很大，因此引起关注的是，许多流行病学观察中使用的替代方法可能低估了因坐着过多而引起的真实影响（ClinicalTrials.govID：NCT02007681）。 （C）2015 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号