A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors
A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005768-200009001-00008
复制
发表时间：
2000-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thompson, RW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Welk, GJ;Blair, SN;Thompson, RW
目的：基于加速度测量的活动监测器为评估自由活动的身体活动提供了希望。它们提供了体力活动的频率、强度和持续时间的客观记录，并且对参与者的负担最小。本研究的目的是评估三种当代活动监测器（计算机科学与应用公司 [CSA]、Tritrac 和 Biotrainer）在实验室和现场条件下的绝对和相对有效性。方法：52 名参与者完成了两个 30 分钟的精心设计的例程，旨在模拟各种生活方式的身体活动。在两个例程中完成了三种不同的跑步机配速，以评估实验室条件下的可靠性和有效性。还检查了六种不同的生活方式活动，以评估监测器在现场条件下的有效性。在每次例行活动中，参与者的活动水平均通过三个活动监测器以及间接量热系统进行监测。结果：与生活方式活动（平均 r = 0.55）相比，跑步机活动（平均 r = 0.86）的监测器和测量的 (V) over dotO(2) 之间的相关性更高。跑步机 (r = 0.86) 和生活方式活动 (r = 0.70) 的不同监测仪之间的相关性很高，表明监测仪在这两种情况下提供相似的信息。在实验室条件下，CSA 可以准确预测能量消耗 (EE)，而 Tritrac 和 Biotrainer 往往会高估 EE（测量值的 101-136%）。然而，Tritrac 被发现在 EE 的个体估计中误差较小。在现场条件下，所有监测仪都低估了 EE（范围：测量值的 42-67%）。结论：监测仪之间观察到的差异主要归因于校准方程的准确性差异，而不是监测仪本身。需要进一步研究以更好地了解如何使用这些设备对身体活动进行现场评估。
Purpose: Accelerometry-based activity monitors offer promise for the assessment of free-living physical activity. They provide an objective record of frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity with minimal burden on participants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the absolute and relative validity of three contemporary activity monitors (Computer Science and Applications, Inc. [CSA], Tritrac, and Biotrainer) under both laboratory and field conditions. Methods: Fifty-two participants completed two 30-min choreographed routines designed to simulate a variety of lifestyle physical activities. Three different treadmill paces were completed in both routines to evaluate reliability and validity under laboratory conditions. Six different lifestyle activities were also examined to evaluate the validity of the monitors under field conditions. During each routine, the activity levels of participants were monitored with the three activity monitors as well as by indirect calorimetry systems. Results: The correlations between the monitors and measured (V)over dotO(2) were higher for treadmill activity (mean r = 0.86) compared with lifestyle activity (mean r = 0.55). Correlations among the different monitors were high for both treadmill (r = 0.86) and lifestyle activities (r = 0.70), suggesting that the monitors provide similar information under both conditions. Under laboratory conditions, the CSA yielded accurate predictions of energy expenditure (EE), whereas the Tritrac and Biotrainer tended to overestimate the EE (101-136% of measured value). The Tritrac, however, was found to have less error in individual estimates of EE. Under field conditions, all of the monitors underestimated EE (range: 42-67% of measured value). Conclusion: The observed differences among the monitors were attributed primarily to differences in the accuracy of the calibration equations rather than to the monitors themselves. Further research is needed to better understand how to use these devices for field-based assessments of physical activity.