“
TL;DR
Methodological quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist (mean score 11.35/17, mostly moderate quality) and the COSMIN checklist (mean 65.83%).
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 5 authors, 5 centres
This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.
Methodological quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist (mean score 11.35/17, mostly moderate quality) and the COSMIN checklist (mean 65.83%).
Methodological quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist (mean score 11.35/17, mostly moderate quality) and the COSMIN checklist (mean 65.83%). A random-effects meta-analysis of eight studies using hip-worn devices yielded a pooled SMD of 0.01 (95% CI: −0.50 to 0.52, p = 0.97), indicating no statistically significant difference between Actigraph and indirect calorimetry for total PAEE, though substantial heterogeneity (I² = 85%) was observed. The authors noted that activity counts were significantly correlated with PAEE, suggesting their use as a predictive variable. Limitations include the focus on only one accelerometer brand and the absence of comparison with the doubly labeled water method.