Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 469

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sedentary behaviour and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews

Open access
Saunders, Travis J., McIsaac, Travis, Douillette, Kevin, Gaulton, Nick, Hunter, Stephen, Rhodes, Ryan E., Prince, Stephanie A., Carson, Valerie, Chaput, Jean-Philippe, Chastin, Sebastien, Giangregorio, Lora, Janssen, Ian, Katzmarzyk, Peter T., Kho, Michelle E., Poitras, Veronica J., Powell, Kenneth E., Ross, Robert, Ross-White, Amanda, Tremblay, Mark S., Healy, Genevieve N.·2020·Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism

Abstract

The purpose of this overview of systematic reviews was to determine the relationship between different types and patterns of sedentary behaviour and selected health outcomes in adults and older adults. Five electronic databases were last searched in May, 2019, with a 10-year search limit. Included reviews met the a priori population (community-dwelling adults aged 18 years and older), intervention/exposure/comparator (various types and/or patterns of sedentary behaviour), and outcomes criteria. Eighteen systematic reviews were included in the evidence synthesis. High levels of sedentary behaviour are unfavourably associated with cognitive function, depression, function and disability, physical activity levels, and physical health-related quality of life in adults. Reducing or breaking up sedentary behaviour may benefit body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk. Total sedentary behaviour and TV viewing were most consistently associated with unfavourable health outcomes, while computer and Internet use may be favourably associated with cognitive function for older adults. The quality of evidence within individual reviews (as assessed by review authors) varied from low to high, while the certainty of evidence was low to very low. These findings have important public health implications, suggesting that adults should avoid high levels of sedentary behaviour and break-up periods of prolonged sitting. (PROSPERO registration nos.: CRD42019123121 and CRD42019127157.) Novelty High levels of sedentary behaviour are unfavourably associated with important health outcomes in adults. Reducing or breaking up sedentary behaviour may benefit body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk. Computer and Internet use may be favourably associated with cognitive function in older adults.

Overview

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 · 10.1139/apnm-2020-0272

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 469

Metadata

Authors
Saunders, T. J., McIsaac, T., Douillette, K., Gaulton, N., Hunter, S., Rhodes, R. E., Prince, S. A., Carson, V., Chaput, J.-P., Chastin, S., Giangregorio, L., Janssen, I., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Kho, M. E., Poitras, V. J., Powell, K. E., Ross, R., Ross-White, A., Tremblay, M. S., & Healy, G. N.
Venue
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism
Published
2020-10
Volume
45
Issue
10 (Suppl. 2)
Pages
S197-S217
ISSN
  • 1715-5312 (ISSN-L)
  • 1715-5320
OpenAlex
W3093037722
Cited by
469
References
20
FWCI
9.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.