Table 2.
Summary statistics for reporting practices by item
| Area | Item | n/N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Methodological justification | Was CoDA mentioned in Title/Abstract? | 100/102 (98%) |
| Was the concept of CoDA introduced and reasons provided for utilizing CoDA to examine associations between 24 h movement behaviors and indicators of health? | 94/102 (92%) | |
| Behavioral measurement and data handling strategies | Were the scoring/processing procedures for sleep described? | 90/102 (88%) |
| If device-based sleep assessment, was a sleep log used to aid in data processing? | 25/63 (40%) | |
| If device-based sleep assessment, was it clear how wake bouts were addressed? | 15/63 (24%) | |
| Was sleep clearly conceptualized (i.e., 24-h, nocturnal only, day only)? | 50/102 (49%) | |
| Was sleep clearly defined (i.e., sleep duration, time in bed)? | 37/102 (36%) | |
| Were naps included in the composition? |
Yes: 17/102 (17%) Unclear: 44/102 (43%) |
|
| Were the scoring/processing decisions for sedentary behavior clearly described? | 93/102 (91%) | |
| Were the scoring/processing decisions for LPA clearly described? | 92/99 (93%) | |
| Were the scoring/processing decisions for MVPA clearly described? | 94/102 (92%) | |
| If device-based measurement, was device placement described? | 87/90 (97%) | |
| If device-based measurement, was how many minutes of wear time was considered a valid day described? | 80/90 (89%) | |
| If device-based measurement, was how many valid days was needed to be considered a valid sample described? | 85/90 (94%) | |
| If device-based measurement, was which valid days were used for analysis described? | 44/90 (49%) | |
| Was how non-wear (if device-assessed) or time not accounted for (if questionnaire) described? | 61/100 (61%) | |
| Composition construction | Was how many parts (i.e., behaviors) the day was partitioned into clearly described? | 102/102 (100%) |
| Was how the behaviors were transformed (e.g., isometric log-ratio) described? | 101/102 (99%) | |
| Was the definition of a day (e.g., Midnight to Midnight/Wake to Wake) described? | 6/102 (6%) | |
| Was the time-bound window that the composition was closed to (e.g., exactly 24 h, mean wear time of sample) described? | 67/102 (66%) | |
| Was how zeros in the behavioral data were handled clearly described? | 27/102 (26%) | |
| Analytic plan | Was the analytic technique after compositional transformation reported clearly? | 101/102 (99%) |
| Were covariates adjusted for within CoDA models clearly outlined? | 99/102 (97%) | |
| Was how missing data was handled in the full dataset described? | 64/102 (63%) | |
| Was a comparison between those included in the analytic sample vs the full sample performed? | 29/101 (29%) | |
| Was a power analysis reported? | 15/102 (15%) | |
| Composition-specific descriptive statistics | Were the geometric means (% of time) for each behavior reported? | 74/102 (73%) |
| Were the arithmetic and/or geometric compositional means reported? | 97/102 (95%) | |
| Was the compositional variation matrix reported? | 51/102 (50%) | |
| Model results | Were the overall composition model statistics in relation to the outcome reported? | 64/102 (63%) |
| If associations between each behavior (relative to the other behaviors) in relation to the outcome were examined, were model statistics including standardized effect sizes (e.g., standardized beta) for each individual behavior reported? | 25/67 (37%) | |
| If isotemporal substitution was used, was the overall composition significantly associated with the outcome? | 43/84 (51%) | |
| If isotemporal substitution was used, was it clearly reported whether 1 to 1 or proportional replacement was computed? | 83/84 (99%) | |
| If isotemporal substitution was used, were substitutions across all behaviors reported? | 69/84 (82%) | |
| If isotemporal substitution was used, were the model statistics for replacing each behavior with time spent in the other behaviors reported, including effect sizes? | 72/84 (86%) | |
| If an optimal behavioral composition model was reported, was the overall composition significantly associated with the outcome? | 6/6 (100%) | |
| If an optimal behavior model was reported, were the estimates for optimal time spent in each behavior reported (in text, Table or a Figure), including a range (Goldilocks) or different options (Many Different Roads) associated with an optimal % of the outcome? | 5/6 (83%) | |
| If an optimal behavior model was reported, was the range associated with an optimal % of the outcome clearly described (e.g., 5%)? | 6/6 (100%) | |
| Auxiliary reporting | Were limitations of compositional data analysis discussed? | 16/102 (16%) |
| Was clinical meaningfulness of the effects discussed? | 22/102 (22%) | |
| Were study funding sources reported? | 100/102 (98%) | |
| Were conflicts of interest reported (including no COI)? | 95/102 (93%) |