Evidence Hub

Reference values for accelerometer metrics and associations with cardiorespiratory fitness: a prospective cohort study of healthy adults and patients with heart failure

F. Schwendinger, Jonathan Wagner, R. Knaier, D. Infanger, A. Rowlands, T. Hinrichs, A. Schmidt-Trucksäss

Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS), 2023

89 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background

Accelerometry has gained increasing popularity and yields numerous physical activity (PA) outcomes (Rowlands et al., 2019). These include traditional cut-point-based (i.e. light, moderate, and vigorous PA) and cut-point-free metrics (i.e. intensity gradient [IG] and average acceleration [AvAcc]). IG reflects the intensity distribution of PA across the day (Rowlands et al., 2018; Fairclough et al., 2019). AvAcc is a proxy for the daily volume of PA ( Rowlands et al., 2018; Fairclough et al., 2019). Cut-point-based metrics are commonly expressed in minutes per day, making their interpretation simple (Troiano et al., 2014). Yet, the measured acceleration needs to be categorised by setting population- and device-dependent cut-points to obtain these metrics (Troiano et al., 2014). Cut-point-free metrics, on the other hand, are comparable across studies, accelerometer brands (Migueles et al., 2022), and diverse populations (Rowlands et al., 2018). However, their interpretation is not easy. Besides, it is unknown how cut-point-free metrics are associated with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), an important health indicator in healthy individuals and patient populations with impaired CRF (Kodama et al., 2009). We thus aimed to 1) compare the association of CRF with cut-point-free metrics to that with cut-point-based metrics in a prospective cohort of healthy adults aged 20 to 89 years and patients with heart failure, and 2) provide age-, sex-, and CRF-related reference…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 89 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free