These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
7. Validation of the Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers for walking and running in adults. Abel MG; Hannon JC; Sell K; Lillie T; Conlin G; Anderson D Appl Physiol Nutr Metab; 2008 Dec; 33(6):1155-64. PubMed ID: 19088773 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Physical activity compliance: differences between overweight/obese and normal-weight adults. Davis JN; Hodges VA; Gillham MB Obesity (Silver Spring); 2006 Dec; 14(12):2259-65. PubMed ID: 17189554 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interinstrument reliability of the RT3 accelerometer. Reneman M; Helmus M Int J Rehabil Res; 2010 Jun; 33(2):178-9. PubMed ID: 19398920 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of two ActiGraph accelerometer generations in the assessment of physical activity in free living conditions. Vanhelst J; Mikulovic J; Bui-Xuan G; Dieu O; Blondeau T; Fardy P; Béghin L BMC Res Notes; 2012 Apr; 5():187. PubMed ID: 22534207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Objective physical activity measurement in people with multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Casey B; Coote S; Donnelly A Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol; 2018 Feb; 13(2):124-131. PubMed ID: 28285547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Ferguson T; Rowlands AV; Olds T; Maher C Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act; 2015 Mar; 12():42. PubMed ID: 25890168 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of a new wrist-worn accelerometer with a commonly used triaxial accelerometer under free-living conditions. Sasaki S; Ukawa S; Okada E; Wenjing Z; Kishi T; Sakamoto A; Tamakoshi A BMC Res Notes; 2018 Oct; 11(1):746. PubMed ID: 30342547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. How many days of monitoring predict physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older adults? Hart TL; Swartz AM; Cashin SE; Strath SJ Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act; 2011 Jun; 8():62. PubMed ID: 21679426 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A random forest classifier for the prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical activity from wrist and hip accelerometers. Ellis K; Kerr J; Godbole S; Lanckriet G; Wing D; Marshall S Physiol Meas; 2014 Nov; 35(11):2191-203. PubMed ID: 25340969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Chen KY; Bassett DR Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2005 Nov; 37(11 Suppl):S490-500. PubMed ID: 16294112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Activity energy expenditure assessment system based on activity classification using multi-site triaxial accelerometers. Dongwoo K; Kim HC Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():2285-7. PubMed ID: 18002447 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of interdevice measurement difference of pedometers in younger and older adults. Ayabe M; Ishii K; Takayama K; Aoki J; Tanaka H Br J Sports Med; 2010 Feb; 44(2):95-9. PubMed ID: 18308892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Objective monitoring of physical activity in children: considerations for instrument selection. McClain JJ; Tudor-Locke C J Sci Med Sport; 2009 Sep; 12(5):526-33. PubMed ID: 19054715 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]