Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. PROSPERO CRD42019118755

中文翻译：

---

成人自我报告和设备测量的久坐行为的比较：系统评价和荟萃分析。


久坐行为（SB）是慢性病和过早死亡的危险因素。虽然许多单独的研究已经检验了用于评估 SB 的各种自我报告措施的可靠性和有效性，但总体而言，尚不清楚自我报告的 SB（例如问卷、日志、生态瞬时评估 (EMA)）与设备相比如何。测量（例如，加速度计、倾斜计）。本系统评价的主要目的是比较成人 SB 的自我报告与设备测量。检索了六个书目数据库以确定所有研究，其中包括成人 SB 的可比自我报告和设备测量。评估了研究内部和研究之间的偏倚风险。使用荟萃分析综合结果。该审查包括 185 项独特的研究。共有 123 项研究（包括 173 项比较和来自 55,199 名参与者的数据）用于检验一般标准的有效性。平均差异为-105.19 分钟/天（95% CI：-127.21，-83.17）；自我报告与设备测量相比，每天低估约 1.74 小时的久坐时间。自我报告的工作久坐时间比通过设备评估的时间长约 40 分钟。单项测量比多项问卷、EMA 和日志/日记表现更差。平均而言，与测斜仪相比，多项目问卷、EMA 和日志/日记没有显着差异，但具有很大的可变性（个别研究中每天最多 6 小时），大约一半报告过多，一半报告不足。报告。共有 54 项研究对自我报告测量的可靠性进行了评估，平均可靠性良好（ICC = 0.66）。 本次审查的证据表明，与设备测量相比，单项自我报告测量通常会低估久坐时间。为了准确性，如果久坐时间是研究的主要结果，则应鼓励多项目问卷、EMA 和回忆期较短的日志/日记高于单项问题和较长的回忆期。用户还应该意识到工具之间和内部的高度可变性。研究在比较不同自我报告和设备测量与健康结果之间的关联时应谨慎行事。普洛斯彼罗 CRD42019118755