Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Correction: Validity of Electronically Administered Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ) in Ten European Countries

  • The PLOS ONE Staff

Correction: Validity of Electronically Administered Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ) in Ten European Countries

  • The PLOS ONE Staff
PLOS
x

There are multiple errors in the “Results” subsection of the Abstract. The correct paragraph is: RPAQ significantly underestimated PAEE in women [median(IQR): 34.9 (22.3, 52.8) vs. 40.6 (32.4, 50.9) kJ/kg/day, 95%LoA: -44.4, 66.1 kJ/kg/day) and overestimated PAEE in men [45.9 (30.6, 71.1) vs. 45.5 (34.1, 57.6) kJ/kg/day, 95%LoA: -44.8, 102.6 kJ/kg/day]. Using individualised definition of 1MET, RPAQ significantly underestimated MVPA in women [median(IQR): 63.7 (30.5, 126.9) vs. 73.6 (47.8, 107.2) min/day, 95%LoA: -127.4, 311.9 min/day] and overestimated MVPA in men [90.0 (42.3, 188.6) vs. 83.3 (55.1, 125.0) min/day, 95%LoA: -134.8, 427.3 min/day]. Correlations (95%CI) between subjective and objective estimates were statistically significant [PAEE: women, rho = 0.20 (0.15-0.26); men, rho = 0.37 (0.30-0.44); MVPA: women, rho = 0.18 (0.13-0.24); men, rho = 0.31 (0.24-0.38)]. When using non-individualised definition of 1MET (3.5 mlO2/kg/min), MVPA was substantially overestimated (16 min/day, and 32 min/day in women and men, respectively). Revisiting occupational intensity assumptions in questionnaire estimation algorithms with occupational group-level empirical distributions reduced median PAEE-bias in manual (38.8 kJ/kg/day vs. 6.8 kJ/kg/day, p<0.001) and heavy manual workers (63.6 vs. -2.8 kJ/kg/day, p<0.001) in an independent hold-out sample.

There is an error in the first sentence of the Introduction. The correct sentence is: Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that physical inactivity is an important determinant of numerous chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer[1]–[3].

There is an error in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction. The correct sentence is: Physical activity (PA) is a complex behaviour that is difficult to assess accurately in free-living individuals [5].

There are multiple errors in the first three sentences of the “Absolute validity” portion of the “Physical activity energy expenditure” subsection of the Results. The correct sentences are: The RPAQ underestimated PAEE in women, with a significant median bias (LoA) of -6.0 (-44.4, 66.1) kJ/kg/day, corresponding to -15% of median PAEE (Table 2). In men, median bias (LoA) was positive at 2.5 (-44.8, 102.6) kJ/kg/day (5.5% of objective median). Median bias (LoA) for all participants was -3.6 (-44.8, 79.1) kJ/kg/day (-7.7%), which was significantly different from 0.

There is an error in the last sentence of the “Relative validity” portion of the “Physical activity energy expenditure” subsection of the Results. The correct sentence is: The pooled estimate in men was substantially (p = 0.003) greater than that in women, rho = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.44) with moderate heterogeneity by country (I2  = 49.5%, p = 0.054).

There are multiple errors in the first two sentences of the “Absolute validity” portion of the “Time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity” subsection of Results. The correct sentences are: When using individualised RMR to define objective MVPA, the RPAQ significantly underestimated MVPA (Table 3) in women with median bias (LoA) -7.5 (-127.4, 311.9) min/day (-10.2%), and significantly overestimated in men, with median bias (LoA) 12.1 (-134.8, 427.3) min/day (14.5%). There was a material underestimation in both sexes combined, with median bias (LoA) -3.0 (-131.1, 363.7) min/day (-4.0%).

There are multiple errors in the “Relative validity” portion of the “Time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity” subsection of Results. The correct paragraph is: Inter-method correlation for MVPA (Figure 1) was slightly weaker than that observed for total PAEE and greater for men than women, p = 0.003 (rho = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.24; I2  =  64.1%, p = 0.003 for women and rho = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.38; I2  =  71.8%, p = 0.001 for men). Comparative pooled correlation coefficients using the standard definition of 1MET were rho = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.22; I2  =  74.3%, p<0.001 in women, and rho = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.34; I2  =  74.8%, p<0.001 in men (Supplementary figure 3); p = 0.007 for the difference in rho between the sexes.

There is an error in the last sentence of the “Relative validity” portion of the “Sedentary time” subsection of the Results. The correct sentence is: When using the standard definition of 1MET, pooled estimate was rho = 0.19 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.24), I2  = 42.8%, p = 0.072 in women and rho = 0.22 (95% CI: 0.13 to 0.30), I2  = 0%, p = 0.949 in men (Supplementary figure 3).

There is an error in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the “Domain-specific PAEE from the RPAQ and total objectively assessed PAEE” subsection of the Results. The correct sentence is: After adjustment for all other domains, correlation coefficients varied by country, and overall there was a weak positive correlation for the occupational domain (women: r = 0.16; men: r = 0.30), leisure time PA (women: r = 0.14; men: r = 0.17) and commuting PA (women: r = 0.11; men: r = 0.10) but a weak negative correlation for PAEE in the home domain (women; r = -0.13; men: r = -0.11).

There are multiple errors in the second paragraph of the “Revisiting occupational intensity distribution” subsection of the Results. The correct paragraph is: When applying these intensity distributions from the “training sample” (N = 1282) to the “holdout sample” (N = 641), occupational and total PAEE displayed an increasing trend across occupational groups (Figure 2), with the highest values in heavy manual workers (p<0.001). After applying the empirically-derived intensity distribution to each group, occupational and total PAEE substantially dropped in all occupations (all p<0.001), with the greatest reduction in heavy manual workers. In all employed participants, the revisited median (IQR) for occupational and total RPAQ-derived PAEE were 8.4 (5.6, 13.1) kJ/kg/day (30% lower than in original derivation) and 30.6 (20.3, 45.2) kJ/kg/day (23% lower than in original derivation), respectively. Similarly, median bias became materially smaller in manual (38.8 kJ/kg/day vs. 6.8 kJ/kg/day, p<0.001) and heavy manual workers (63.6 vs. -2.8 kJ/kg/day, p<0.001) in the hold-out sample, but increased somewhat in sedentary and standing workers (p<0.001 in all groups). The revisited median bias (LoA) for all occupations was -10.5 (-51.0, 56.1) kJ/kg/day, corresponding to 25.9% of median PAEE.

There are multiple errors in the third to last sentence of the third paragraph of the Discussion. The correct sentence is: The underestimation of PAEE by the RPAQ is consistent with the findings of our previous validation study using doubly labelled water as the criterion16, but the size of bias in the current larger study is smaller [median(LoA)] for all participants: -3.6 (-44.8, 79.1) kJ/kg/day (-7.7%), which is equivalent to -62 (-771, 1361) kcal/day for a person with a body weight of the sample mean.

There are multiple errors in Table 2. Please see the corrected Table 2 here.

thumbnail
Table 2. Physical activity energy expenditure (kJ/kg/day) as assessed by the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire and combined movement sensor and heart rate monitor, N = 1923.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092829.t002

There are multiple errors in Table 3. Please see the corrected Table 3 here.

thumbnail
Table 3. Time spent in moderate and vigorous physical activity (min/day) as assessed by the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire and combined movement sensor and heart rate monitor, N = 1923.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092829.t003

There are multiple errors in Table 5. Please see the corrected Table 5 here.

thumbnail
Table 5. Domain-specific energy expenditure from the RPAQ and partial correlation with objectively assessed physical activity energy expenditure adjusted for all other domains (580 men and 1343 women).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092829.t005

There are multiple errors in Figure 1. Please see the corrected Figure 1 here.

thumbnail
Figure 1. Spearman’s correlation coefficients for the associations of physical activity energy expenditure, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time assessed by the RPAQ with objectively measured corresponding variables by country and sex in 1343 women and 540 men.

There are errors in Table S1 and Figures S1-S6 of the Supporting Information. Please view the corrected files below.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092829.g001

Supporting Information

Table S1.

Time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (min/day) as assessed by the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire and combined movement sensor and heart rate monitor, N = 1923.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s001

(DOCX)

Figure S1.

Bland-Altman plots of physical activity energy expentiture (kJ/kg/day), time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (min/day) and sedentary time (h/day) from RPAQ and combined sensing stratified by sex using individualised definition of 1MET; solid line represents median bias, and dashed lines denote limits of agreement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s002

(TIF)

Figure S2.

Bland-Altman plots of time at moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (min/day) and sedentary time (h/day) from RPAQ and combined sensing stratified by sex using standard definition of 1MET  = 3.5 ml O2/kg/min (1343 women and 540 men); solid line represents median bias, and dashed lines denote limits of agreement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s003

(TIF)

Figure S3.

Spearman’s correlation coefficients for the associations of time at moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time assessed by the RPAQ with objectively measured corresponding variables by country and sex using standard definition of 1MET  = 3.5 ml O2/kg/min (1343 women and 540 men).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s004

(TIF)

Figure S4.

Spearman's correlation coefficients for the associations of objectively assessed physical activity energy expenditure and time at moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with the Cambridge Index in the RPAQ validation study cohort (N = 1923, 1343 women and 540 men).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s005

(TIF)

Figure S5.

Intensity distribution during working hours from Monday to Friday by occupational group in the RPAQ validation study cohort (N = 1923, 1343 women and 540 men) using individualised definition of 1 MET. Inserts of each graph show zoomed view of intensity distribution in the MVPA (>3 METs) zone. All values have been normalised to bin size 0.25 METs. Data are median (IQR).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s006

(TIF)

Figure S6.

Intensity distribution during working hours from Monday to Friday by occupational group in the RPAQ validation study cohort (N = 1923, 1343 women and 540 men) using standard definition of 1MET  = 3.5 ml O2/kg/min. Inserts of each graph show zoomed view of intensity distribution in the MVPA (>3 METs) zone. All values have been normalised to bin size 0.25 METs. Data are median (IQR).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114103.s007

(TIF)

Reference

  1. 1. Golubic R, May AM, Benjaminsen Borch K, Overvad K, Charles M-A, et al. (2014) Validity of Electronically Administered Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ) in Ten European Countries. PLoS ONE 9(3): e92829