## 3 Results
### Quality Assessment  
Table 2 presents the methodological assessment of the 30 studies retained in the final synthesis, based on the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The overall methodological quality of the included studies can be classified as moderate to high. Total MINORS scores ranged from 14 to 18 points, with a maximum possible score of 18. The mean score across all studies was 16.7 (\(\pm\)1.1), with a median value of 17. Using a cut-off point of \(\geq\)17 to denote high methodological quality, 60% of the studies (n = 18) were categorized as high quality, while the remaining 40% (n = 12) fell into the moderate quality range. Importantly, none of the studies met the criteria for low quality (i.e., scores below 14). Most studies received the maximum score (2 points) in the initial MINORS domains, including the presence of a clearly stated aim, consecutive inclusion of participants, prospective data collection, the use of endpoints appropriate to the study objective, and unbiased assessment of the study outcome. These consistently high scores suggest good adherence to fundamental principles of observational research. Similarly, most studies demonstrated low rates of attrition or missing data, with the majority reporting less than 5% loss to follow-up, which supports the reliability of accelerometer-based assessments and the internal validity of the findings. Despite these strengths, certain limitations were recurrent across the included literature. The most frequently downgraded item was the adequacy of the follow-up period in relation to the study aim. This reflects the predominance of cross-sectional designs or  
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the study. studies employing very short monitoring periods--typically one week or less--which may not capture habitual patterns of behavior or account for seasonal variability. Additionally, few studies provided a fully justified prospective sample size calculation. In approximately half of the cases, partial justification was given (e.g., citing previous literature), while the remaining studies offered no power analysis at all. Furthermore, the final three MINORS items related to the comparability of groups (items 8 to 10) were not applicable to most studies, given the observational, single-cohort design adopted across the review. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|p{113.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt} p{22.8 pt}} \hline
**References** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** & **Score** \\ \[PERSON] et al. [29] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 1 & 2 & 16/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [30] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 18/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [31] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 17/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [32] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 17/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [33] & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 1 & 2 & 16/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [34] & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 1 & 2 & 16/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [35] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 17/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [36] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 16/17 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [37] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 18/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [20] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 18/18 \\ \hline [PERSON] [38] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 16/17 \\ \[PERSON] et al. [39] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & NA & NA & NA & 1 & 2 & 16/18 \\ \[PERSON] et al. [40] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 16/18 \\ \[PERSON] et al. [41] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 2 & 2 & 18/18 \\ \[PERSON] et al. [24] & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & NA & NA & NA & 1 & 2 & 17/18 \\ \[PERSON] et al.