Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To determine the criterion validity of the activPAL and ActiGraph for measuring steps and sitting/sedentary time, compared to observation, in people hospitalised following orthopaedic lower limb injury who were weight bearing (WB) (i.e., walking) or non-weight bearing (NWB) (i.e., hopping).
Materials And Methods: Participants wore an activPAL and ActiGraph on the hip/thigh/unaffected (UA)/affected ankle (AA) while completing bouts of walking and sitting. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman methods, and ratio of agreement were used to compare device-measured to observed (videoed) step count, sitting/sedentary time.
Results: In 42 participants, the ActiGraph demonstrated excellent concordance with the observed step count when worn on the ankle (LCC 0.91-0.92) compared to the hip (LCC 0.56) in participants that were WB. The ActiGraph AA achieved the highest concordance (LCC 0.71) with observed steps in participants NWB. The activPAL had poor concordance with observed steps, particularly at slow gait speeds, in participants that were WB (LCC 0.38-0.46), however was less influenced by gait speed and had good concordance in NWB participants (LCC 0.52-0.69). The activPAL (LCC 0.79-0.88) and ActiGraph UA (LCC 0.94) showed excellent concordance with observed sitting and sedentary time, respectively.
Conclusions: The ActiGraph worn at the ankle provided the most valid measure of steps in people who are WB and NWB following orthopaedic injury, while the activPAL was best for measuring sitting time.Implications for rehabilitationTo accurately measure both steps and sitting time in people with lower limb orthopaedic injuries, a combination of activity monitors should be used (i.e., ActiGraph for steps, activPAL for sitting time).The ActiGraph device when worn on the ankle demonstrated the strongest agreement with observed step count in people who were weight bearing and non-weight bearing.Caution is needed when using thigh- or hip-worn devices in people who walk slowly.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2157896 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!