{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03697617091207888, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027937551355792935, 'mean_word_length': 5.804469273743017, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Physical activity monitor for recording energy expenditure in pregnancy

Objective. To determine whether the energy expenditure recorded with the physical activity monitor SenseWear™ Pro2 Armband differs from that recorded with indirect calorimetry. Design. Cross‐sectional comparison of measures of energy expenditure. Setting. A convenient sample recruited from a randomized controlled trial. Population. Twenty‐nine pregnant women (24–43years old). Methods. Energy expenditure was recorded with SenseWear™ Pro2 Armband and a portable oxygen analyzer for 90minutes while carrying out a variety of activities of different intensities. Main Outcome Measures. Energy expenditure recorded with the physical activity monitor SenseWear™ Pro2 Armband. Results. Comparing energy expenditure during free‐living activities, the mean differences and limits of agreements from Bland–Altman plots was −136±343kJ, giving an underestimation of energy expenditure by 9%. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.71–0.93; p<0.001), giving 85% of the variance explained by differences among individuals. Conclusions. SenseWear™ Pro2 Armband is a valid measure of energy expenditure during pregnancy.