Aller au contenu principal
2012 article

Reliability of Pedometers to Measure Step Counts in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Disease

50Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
5Institutions déclarées
2Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : gb, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

In Brief PURPOSE: There are a variety of devices currently available to measure physical activity. Activity monitors are technologically advanced and provide complex data, leading to higher costs. Pedometers are simple, inexpensive devices that provide easy-to-view data. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of pedometer step counting during slow walking speeds, typical of patients with chronic respiratory disease. METHODS: The reproducibility of 8 pedometers was initially determined at slow walking speeds in a healthy individual. Thereafter, pedometer step counting was compared with an activity monitor and visual step counts in 9 healthy subjects and 48 patients with chronic respiratory disease. RESULTS: Pedometers were reproducible on the same wearer, on consecutive occasions, although they were not interchangeable. During healthy subject walking, there were no significant differences between the pedometer and activity monitor at all speeds. However, both significantly undercounted steps at slower walking speeds (P < .01). At slow and medium walking speeds with patients with chronic respiratory disease, both the pedometer and activity monitor significantly undercounted steps (P < .001 for both pedometer and activity monitor at slow and P < .003 for pedometer and P < .004 for activity monitor at medium speeds) compared with visual counts. CONCLUSIONS: Pedometers are an inexpensive and simple alternative to activity monitors and appear to be reliable during faster walking in both healthy subjects and patients with chronic respiratory disease. However, caution should be applied during slow walking speeds because of undercounting steps, causing misleading data that could become demotivating when used as a training adjunct. This study assessed pedometer step count reliability at slow walking speeds. We found that pedometers were reproducible, although with healthy subjects and patients with chronic respiratory disease, both the pedometer and activity monitor significantly undercounted steps at slower walking speeds. Therefore, caution should be applied when considering their use as a treatment.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Reliability of Pedometers to Measure Step Counts in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Disease
Date Crossref
01/09/2012
Éditeur
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Physical Activity and HealthChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchCardiovascular and exercise physiology

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.