MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4292649993 · doi:10.2196/34734

Wearables for Measuring the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior of Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4292649993 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julie Soulard, Thomas Carlin, Johannes Knitza, Nicolas Vuillerme

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsActivity trackerMedicineAxial spondyloarthritisPhysical therapyWearable computerWearable technologyPhysical activitySedentary behaviorPopulationSedentary lifestyleSystematic reviewQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMEDLINEDiseaseInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an inflammatory rheumatic disease associated with chronic back pain and restricted mobility and physical function. Increasing physical activity is a viable strategy for improving the health and quality of life of patients with axSpA. Thus, quantifying physical activity and sedentary behavior in this population is relevant to clinical outcomes and disease management. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review to date has identified and synthesized the available evidence on the use of wearable devices to objectively measure the physical activity or sedentary behavior of patients with axSpA. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the literature on the use of wearable activity trackers as outcome measures for physical activity and sedentary behavior in patients with axSpA. METHODS: PubMed, PEDro, and Cochrane electronic databases were searched in July 2021 for relevant original articles, with no limits on publication dates. Studies were included if they were original articles, targeted adults with a diagnosis of axSpA, and reported wearable device-measured physical activity or sedentary behavior among patients with axSpA. Data regarding the study's characteristics, the sample description, the methods used for measuring physical activity and sedentary behavior (eg, wearable devices, assessment methods, and outcomes), and the main results of the physical activity and sedentary behavior assessments were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were initially identified; 13 (13/31, 42%) met the inclusion criteria, including 819 patients with axSpA. All the studies used accelerometer-based wearable devices to assess physical activity. Of the 13 studies, 4 (4/31, 31%) studies also reported outcomes related to sedentary behavior. Wearable devices were secured on the wrists (3/13 studies, 23%), lower back (3/13, 23%), right hip (3/13, 23%), waist (2/13, 15%), anterior thigh (1/13, 8%), or right arm (1/13, 8%). The methods for reporting physical activity and sedentary behavior were heterogeneous. Approximately 77% (10/13) of studies had a monitoring period of 1 week, including weekend days. CONCLUSIONS: To date, few studies have used wearable devices to quantify the physical activity and sedentary behavior of patients with axSpA. The methodologies and results were heterogeneous, and none of these studies assessed the psychometric properties of these wearables in this specific population. Further investigation in this direction is needed before using wearable device-measured physical activity and sedentary behavior as outcome measures in intervention studies in patients with axSpA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182398; https://tinyurl.com/ec22jzkt. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/23359.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→