English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the step count functions in Actical accelerometers and activPAL inclinometers, compared with pedome-ter-derived step count data. Firstly, directly observed step counts over 3 treadmill speeds were compared with steps collected from 3 pedometers, accelerometers, and inclinometers in 10 adults. Secondly, step count data were derived from 22 participants who wore a pedome-ter, accelerometer, and inclinometer over 48 hours. Agreement between measurement tools was determined. All monitors appropriately measured steps in the labo-ratory conditions. In free living conditions, the mean percentage differences with pedometer-determined step counts were -7.3% and 7.0% for the Actical and ac-tivPAL monitors, respectively. With the exception of slow walking for the Actical units (ICC < 0.001), acceptable reliability was found within units for all treadmill speeds, and across units during the free living condition. The 95% prediction interval ranges were wide, ranging from -68.8% to 54.2% for the Acticals, and from -39.1% to 53.2% for the activPALs. Step counts gathered from Actical and activPAL units should not be used interchangeably with pedometer-derived step count data

Counting Steps in Research: A Comparison of Accelerometry and Pedometry