actical physical activity monitor omnidirectional accelerometer  (Philips Healthcare)

Journal: Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism

Article Title: Validity of Accelerometers for the Evaluation of Energy Expenditure in Obese and Overweight Individuals: A Systematic Review

doi: 10.1155/2020/2327017

Figure Lengend Snippet: Characteristics of the included study and validity results.

Article Snippet: [ ] , Actical physical activity monitor omnidirectional accelerometer (Philips Respironics, Inc., Bend, Ore., USA)/waist or wrist SWA/upper part of the dominant arm IDEEA accelerometer (MiniSun LLC, Fresno, Calif., USA, five biaxial accelerometer nodes)/5 sensors that are placed on the body: 1 on the chest, 2 on the front of the thighs, and 2 on the feet , DLW , TEE and AEE , TEE measured by DLW for 2 weeks and by accelerometers for 1 week (only the week that corresponded with wearing the activity monitors was used for analysis). AEE DLW was calculated as TEE − (RMR + (0.1 × TEE)), where IC was measured with Deltatrac II metabolic car , (i) Actical waist AEE : (1) Mean difference: −466.01 kJ/d −1 ( p =0.01) (2) Bland–Altman: R 2 = 0.197 ( p =0.00) (ii) Actical wrist AEE L: (1) Mean difference: 813.9 kJ/d −1 ( p =0.00) (2) Bland–Altman: R 2 = 0.007 ( p =0.49) (iii) SWA TEE : (1) Mean difference: −251 kJ/d −1 ( p =0.44) (2) Bland–Altman: R 2 = 0.054 ( p =0.22) (iii) SWA AEE : (1) Mean difference: −1745 kJ/d −1 ( p =0.00) (2) Bland–Altman: R 2 = 0.286 ( p =0.00) (iv) IDEEA TEE : (1) Mean difference: 509.2 kJ/d −1 ( p =0.17) (2) Bland–Altman: R 2 = 0.035 ( p =0.33) (v) IDEEA AEE : (1) Mean difference: 454.8 kJ/d −1 ( p =0.21) (2) Bland–Altman: R 2 = 0.080 ( p =0.15) , The performance of the Actical was poor, while the IDEEA accurately estimated AEE when compared with DLW, and both the Sensewear and the IDEEA produced relatively accurate estimates of TEE.

Techniques: Activity Assay, Software, Countercurrent Chromatography, Staining, Produced, Immunocytochemistry, Derivative Assay