Cited by 218Physical Activity and HealthInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementHealth disparities and outcomes

Sedentary behaviour and life expectancy in the USA: a cause-deleted life table analysis

Open access
Katzmarzyk, Peter T, Lee, I-Min·2012·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of sitting and television viewing on life expectancy in the USA. DESIGN: Prevalence-based cause-deleted life table analysis. SETTING: Summary RRs of all-cause mortality associated with sitting and television viewing were obtained from a meta-analysis of available prospective cohort studies. Prevalences of sitting and television viewing were obtained from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Life expectancy at birth. RESULTS: The estimated gains in life expectancy in the US population were 2.00 years for reducing excessive sitting to <3 h/day and a gain of 1.38 years from reducing excessive television viewing to <2 h/day. The lower and upper limits from a sensitivity analysis that involved simultaneously varying the estimates of RR (using the upper and lower bounds of the 95% CI) and the prevalence of television viewing (±20%) were 1.39 and 2.69 years for sitting and 0.48 and 2.51 years for television viewing, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reducing sedentary behaviours such as sitting and television viewing may have the potential to increase life expectancy in the USA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000828

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Katzmarzyk and Lee reported an 18%-45% increase in risk of all-cause mortality for higher levels of sitting, relative to the lowest level.

    “In another study, Katzmarzyk and Lee [15] reported an 18%-45% increase in risk of all-cause mortality for higher levels of sitting, relative to the lowest level.”

    From Daily Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [15]

  • The main limitation is the small number of studies included, though greater than some previous meta-analyses.

    “The main limitation of this meta-analysis is the small number of studies included, although this was greater than in some previous meta-analyses[13,15].”

    From Daily Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Other meta-analyses have reported pooled HRs of 1.18-1.45 and 1.49 for highest versus lowest sitting/sedentary time.

    “Other meta-analyses have shown pooled HRs of 1.18-1.45 [15] and 1.49 [18] for the group with the highest level of sitting or sedentary time compared with the lowest group, respectively.”

    From Daily Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Prior meta-analyses combined different measures of sedentary behavior and did not examine dose-response relationships for daily total sitting time.

    “However, both studies combined different measures of sedentary behavior (TV-viewing mostly, and sitting time) in their analyses, and neither study examined dose-response relationships for daily total sitting time.”

    From Daily Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katzmarzyk, P. T., & Lee, I.-M.
Affiliations
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Katzmarzyk, Peter T
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
e000828
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2172123562
Cited by
218
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 5
FWCI
16.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
sedentary behavior, sitting time, television viewing, life expectancy, all-cause mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review