Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Reporting accelerometer methods in physical activity intervention studies: a systematic review and recommendations for authors
  1. Alexander H K Montoye1,2,
  2. Rebecca W Moore3,
  3. Heather R Bowles4,
  4. Robert Korycinski4,
  5. Karin A Pfeiffer5
  1. 1 Department of Integrative Physiology and Health Science, Alma College, Alma, Michigan, USA
  2. 2 Clinical Exercise Physiology Program, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA
  3. 3 School of Health Promotion and Human Performance, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
  4. 4 Biometry Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
  5. 5 Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alexander H K Montoye, Department of Integrative Physiology and Health Science, Alma College, 614 W. Superior, Alma, MI 48801, USA; montoyeah{at}


Objective This systematic review assessed the completeness of accelerometer reporting in physical activity (PA) intervention studies and assessed factors related to accelerometer reporting.

Design The PubMed database was used to identify manuscripts for inclusion. Included studies were PA interventions that used accelerometers, were written in English and were conducted between 1 January 1998 and 31 July 2014. 195 manuscripts from PA interventions that used accelerometers to measure PA were included. Manuscript completeness was scored using 12 questions focused on 3 accelerometer reporting areas: accelerometer information, data processing and interpretation and protocol non-compliance. Variables, including publication year, journal focus and impact factor, and population studied were evaluated to assess trends in reporting completeness.

Results The number of manuscripts using accelerometers to assess PA in interventions increased from 1 in 2002 to 29 in the first 7 months of 2014. Accelerometer reporting completeness correlated weakly with publication year (r=0.24, p<0.001). Correlations were greater when we assessed improvements over time in reporting data processing in manuscripts published in PA-focused journals (r=0.43, p=0.002) compared to manuscripts published in non-PA-focused journals (r=0.19, p=0.021). Only 7 of 195 (4%) manuscripts reported all components of accelerometer use, and only 132 (68%) reported more than half of the components.

Conclusions Accelerometer reporting of PA in intervention studies has been poor and improved only minimally over time. We provide recommendations to improve accelerometer reporting and include a template to standardise reports.

  • Accelerometer
  • Physical activity
  • Review
  • Intervention effectiveness

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.