PURPOSE The primary aim of this study was to compare steps/day across ActiGraph models, wear locations, and filtering methods. A secondary aim was to compare ActiGraph steps/day to those estimated by the ankle-worn StepWatch. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of adults published before May 12, 2022, that compared free-living steps/day of ActiGraph step-counting methods and studies that compared ActiGraph to StepWatch. Random effects meta-analysis compared ActiGraph models, wear locations, filter mechanisms, and ActiGraph to StepWatch steps/day. A sensitivity analysis of wear location by younger and older age was included. RESULTS Twelve studies, with 46 comparisons, were identified. When worn on the hip, the AM-7164 recorded 123% of the GT series steps (no low-frequency extension (no LFE) or default filter). However, the AM-7164 recorded 72% of the GT series steps when the LFE was enabled. Independent of the filter used (i.e., LFE, no LFE), ActiGraph GT series monitors captured more steps on the wrist than on the hip, especially among older adults. Enabling the LFE on the GT series monitors consistently recorded more steps, regardless of wear location. When using the default filter (no LFE), ActiGraph recorded fewer steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on hip 73% and ActiGraph on wrist 97% of StepWatch steps). When LFE was enabled, ActiGraph recorded more steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on the hip 132% and ActiGraph on the wrist 178% of StepWatch steps). CONCLUSIONS The choice of ActiGraph model, wear location, and filter all impacted steps/day in adults. These can markedly alter the steps recorded compared to a criterion method (StepWatch). This review provides critical insights for comparing studies using different ActiGraph step-counting methods.

中文翻译：

---

ActiGraph 成人计步方法的比较分析：系统文献综述和荟萃分析。

目的 本研究的主要目的是比较 ActiGraph 模型、磨损位置和过滤方法的每日步数。第二个目标是将 ActiGraph 步数/天与脚踝佩戴的 StepWatch 估计的步数进行比较。方法 我们进行了系统的文献综述，以识别 2022 年 5 月 12 日之前发表的成人研究，这些研究比较了 ActiGraph 步数计算方法/天的自由生活步数，以及将 ActiGraph 与 StepWatch 进行比较的研究。随机效应荟萃分析将 ActiGraph 模型、磨损位置、过滤机制和 ActiGraph 与 StepWatch 步数/天进行比较。包括对较年轻和较年长磨损位置的敏感性分析。结果 确定了 12 项研究，其中有 46 项比较。当戴在臀部时，AM-7164 记录了 123% 的 GT 系列步数（无低频扩展（无 LFE）或默认滤波器）。然而，当启用 LFE 时，AM-7164 记录了 GT 系列步数的 72%。与所使用的滤波器无关（即，LFE、无 LFE），ActiGraph GT 系列监测器捕获的手腕步数多于臀部步数，尤其是老年人。在 GT 系列显示器上启用 LFE，无论佩戴位置如何，都能持续记录更多步数。使用默认过滤器（无 LFE）时，ActiGraph 记录的步数比 StepWatch 少（臀部 ActiGraph 为 StepWatch 步数的 73%，手腕上 ActiGraph 为 97%）。启用 LFE 时，ActiGraph 记录的步数比 StepWatch 多（臀部上的 ActiGraph 为 StepWatch 步数的 132%，手腕上的 ActiGraph 为 178%）。结论 ActiGraph 模型的选择、佩戴位置并过滤成人每天受影响的所有步数。与标准方法（StepWatch）相比，这些可以显着改变记录的步数。这篇综述为比较使用不同 ActiGraph 计步方法的研究提供了重要的见解。