Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 21,979)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
259 Mendeley
Title
Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women
Published in
The Lancet, July 2016
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30370-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulf Ekelund, Jostein Steene-Johannessen, Wendy J Brown, Morten Wang Fagerland, Neville Owen, Kenneth E Powell, Adrian Bauman, I-Min Lee, Ekelund, Ulf, Steene-Johannessen, Jostein, Brown, Wendy J, Fagerland, Morten Wang, Owen, Neville, Powell, Kenneth E, Bauman, Adrian, Lee, I-Min, , , Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, Fagerland MW, Owen N, Powell KE, Bauman A, Lee IM, Lancet Physical Activity Series 2 Executive Committe, Lancet Sedentary Behaviour Working Group

Abstract

High amounts of sedentary behaviour have been associated with increased risks of several chronic conditions and mortality. However, it is unclear whether physical activity attenuates or even eliminates the detrimental effects of prolonged sitting. We examined the associations of sedentary behaviour and physical activity with all-cause mortality. We did a systematic review, searching six databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, Sport Discus, and Scopus) from database inception until October, 2015, for prospective cohort studies that had individual level exposure and outcome data, provided data on both daily sitting or TV-viewing time and physical activity, and reported effect estimates for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, or breast, colon, and colorectal cancer mortality. We included data from 16 studies, of which 14 were identified through a systematic review and two were additional unpublished studies where pertinent data were available. All study data were analysed according to a harmonised protocol, which categorised reported daily sitting time and TV-viewing time into four standardised groups each, and physical activity into quartiles (in metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-hours per week). We then combined data across all studies to analyse the association of daily sitting time and physical activity with all-cause mortality, and estimated summary hazard ratios using Cox regression. We repeated these analyses using TV-viewing time instead of daily sitting time. Of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis, 13 studies provided data on sitting time and all-cause mortality. These studies included 1 005 791 individuals who were followed up for 2-18·1 years, during which 84 609 (8·4%) died. Compared with the referent group (ie, those sitting <4 h/day and in the most active quartile [>35·5 MET-h per week]), mortality rates during follow-up were 12-59% higher in the two lowest quartiles of physical activity (from HR=1·12, 95% CI 1·08-1·16, for the second lowest quartile of physical activity [<16 MET-h per week] and sitting <4 h/day; to HR=1·59, 1·52-1·66, for the lowest quartile of physical activity [<2·5 MET-h per week] and sitting >8 h/day). Daily sitting time was not associated with increased all-cause mortality in those in the most active quartile of physical activity. Compared with the referent (<4 h of sitting per day and highest quartile of physical activity [>35·5 MET-h per week]), there was no increased risk of mortality during follow-up in those who sat for more than 8 h/day but who also reported >35·5 MET-h per week of activity (HR=1·04; 95% CI 0·99-1·10). By contrast, those who sat the least (<4 h/day) and were in the lowest activity quartile (<2·5 MET-h per week) had a significantly increased risk of dying during follow-up (HR=1·27, 95% CI 1·22-1·31). Six studies had data on TV-viewing time (N=465 450; 43 740 deaths). Watching TV for 3 h or more per day was associated with increased mortality regardless of physical activity, except in the most active quartile, where mortality was significantly increased only in people who watched TV for 5 h/day or more (HR=1·16, 1·05-1·28). High levels of moderate intensity physical activity (ie, about 60-75 min per day) seem to eliminate the increased risk of death associated with high sitting time. However, this high activity level attenuates, but does not eliminate the increased risk associated with high TV-viewing time. These results provide further evidence on the benefits of physical activity, particularly in societies where increasing numbers of people have to sit for long hours for work and may also inform future public health recommendations. None.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 723 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
Brazil 3 1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 242 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 21%
Student > Master 50 19%
Researcher 49 19%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Other 20 8%
Other 63 24%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 39%
Sports and Recreations 62 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 6%
Psychology 13 5%
Other 46 18%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2883. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#73
of 7,424,936 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#3
of 21,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3
of 250,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#1
of 536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,424,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 536 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.