For total EE , correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices .
For active EE , correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices .
The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome .
Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors .
The assessment of physical activity in healthy population s and in those with chronic diseases is challenging .
The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors ( AM ) have been appropriately vali date d for use in assessing physical activity in these groups .
Physical activity monitor for recording energy expenditure in pregnancy
Objective . To determine whether the energy expenditure recorded with the physical activity monitor SenseWear ™ Pro2 Armb and differs from that recorded with indirect calorimetry . Design . Cross‐sectional comparison of measures of energy expenditure . Setting . A convenient sample recruited from a r and omized controlled trial . Population . Twenty‐nine pregnant women ( 24–43years old ) . Methods . Energy expenditure was recorded with SenseWear ™ Pro2 Armb and and a portable oxygen analyzer for 90minutes while carrying out a variety of activities of different intensities . Main Outcome Measures . Energy expenditure recorded with the physical activity monitor SenseWear ™ Pro2 Armb and . Results . Comparing energy expenditure during free‐living activities , the mean differences and limits of agreements from Bl and –Altman plots was −136±343kJ , giving an underestimation of energy expenditure by 9 % . The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85 ( 95 % confidence interval 0.71–0.93 ; p<0.001 ) , giving 85 % of the variance explained by differences among individuals . Conclusions . SenseWear ™ Pro2 Armb and is a valid measure of energy expenditure during pregnancy
For total EE , correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices .
For active EE , correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices .
The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome .
Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors .
The assessment of physical activity in healthy population s and in those with chronic diseases is challenging .
The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors ( AM ) have been appropriately vali date d for use in assessing physical activity in these groups .