Sedentary behaviour in relation to ovarian cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Biller VS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8417015 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess sedentary work's contribution to breast cancer risk quantitatively using thorough research articles.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis using a registered protocol in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020204629). Literature from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane involving sedentary work and breast cancer risk was reviewed. We calculated the overall pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CI with a random-effect model from the included studies. Furthermore, we performed stratified analyses by characteristics of studies.ResultsThirty-one studies (13 cohort studies and 18 case-control studies) were included in the analysis. The overall effect of the pooled analysis was an RR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.08-1.23). The results were 1.20 (95% CI 1.10-1.30) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.23) for cohort and case-control studies. The effect of sedentary work did not seem to be consistently attenuated by controlling body mass index, menopausal status, or experience of hormone replacement therapy.ConclusionThe results from this meta-analysis suggest that sedentary behavior within the occupational domain was associated with a 15.5% increased risk of breast cancer. It is essential to reduce the sedentary time spent at work and to secure time for leisure-time physical activity among sedentary workers as a primary preventive measure.
| S-EPMC8221371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose To estimate the strength and shape of the dose-response relationship between sedentary behaviour and all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes (T2D), adjusted for physical activity (PA). Data Sources: Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (through September-2016); reference lists. Study Selection: Prospective studies reporting associations between total daily sedentary time or TV viewing time, and ≥ one outcome of interest. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data, study quality was assessed; corresponding authors were approached where needed. Data Synthesis: Thirty-four studies (1,331,468 unique participants; good study quality) covering 8 exposure-outcome combinations were included. For total sedentary behaviour, the PA-adjusted relationship was non-linear for all-cause mortality (RR per 1 h/day: were 1.01 (1.00-1.01) ≤ 8 h/day; 1.04 (1.03-1.05) > 8 h/day of exposure), and for CVD mortality (1.01 (0.99-1.02) ≤ 6 h/day; 1.04 (1.03-1.04) > 6 h/day). The association was linear (1.01 (1.00-1.01)) with T2D and non-significant with cancer mortality. Stronger PA-adjusted associations were found for TV viewing (h/day); non-linear for all-cause mortality (1.03 (1.01-1.04) ≤ 3.5 h/day; 1.06 (1.05-1.08) > 3.5 h/day) and for CVD mortality (1.02 (0.99-1.04) ≤ 4 h/day; 1.08 (1.05-1.12) > 4 h/day). Associations with cancer mortality (1.03 (1.02-1.04)) and T2D were linear (1.09 (1.07-1.12)).Conclusions Independent of PA, total sitting and TV viewing time are associated with greater risk for several major chronic disease outcomes. For all-cause and CVD mortality, a threshold of 6-8 h/day of total sitting and 3-4 h/day of TV viewing was identified, above which the risk is increased.
| S-EPMC6133005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined the association of sedentary behavior with risk of ovarian cancer overall, by tumor subtype, and by participant characteristics in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II). A total of 69,558 NHS participants (1992-2016) and 104,130 NHS II participants (1991-2015) who reported on time spent sitting at home, at work, and while watching television were included in the analysis, which included 884 histologically confirmed ovarian cancer cases. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ovarian cancer by sitting time (no mutual adjustment for individual sitting types in primary analyses). We examined potential heterogeneity by tumor histological type (type I or II), body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)2; < 25 or ≥25), and total physical activity (<15 or ≥15 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/week). We observed an increased risk of ovarian cancer for women who sat at work for 10-19 hours/week (HR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.51) and ≥20 hours/week (HR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.71) versus <5 hours/week. This association did not vary by body mass index, physical activity, or histotype (P for heterogeneity ≥ 0.43). No associations were observed for overall sitting, sitting while watching television, or other sitting at home. Longer sitting time at work was associated with elevated risk of ovarian cancer. Further investigations are required to confirm these findings and elucidate underlying mechanisms.
| S-EPMC9271222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is considered to contribute to sarcopenia when combined with physical inactivity. Whether sedentary behaviour is independently associated with sarcopenia remains controversial. The aim of this study is to explore the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia in older adults in community and long-term care facility settings.MethodsEight electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Wanfang were searched from inception until August 2023. The review included cross-sectional and longitudinal studies concerning the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia among participants over 60 years old. Evidence was pooled by both random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Subgroup analyses explored variation according to adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. Quality assessment for individual studies was performed with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist.ResultsSeventeen articles (16 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal study) of 25,788 participants from community or long-term care facility settings were included. The overall quality of the included studies was rated high. Meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies showed that sedentary behaviour was independently positively associated with sarcopenia: pooled odd ratio 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.58). The independent positive association remained in subgroup analyses by adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. The narrative analysis corroborated the findings of the meta-analysis and provided additional evidence suggesting that interruptions in sedentary periods were linked to a decreased likelihood of developing sarcopenia.ConclusionsThe findings support the hypothesis that sedentary behaviour is independently positively associated with sarcopenia in older adults, providing vital indications for the development of strategies to prevent sarcopenia.Systematic review registrationThe systematic review protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42022311399).
| S-EPMC10734096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has forced many cancer services to consider a transition to a remote format of delivery that is largely untested. Accordingly, we sought to perform a systematic review of the effects of remotely delivered interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary adults living with and beyond cancer.MethodsEligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing a remotely delivered exercise intervention to a usual care comparison in sedentary people over 18 years old with a primary cancer diagnosis. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2020.ResultsThe review included three trials, totalling 186 participants. Two of the included trials incorporated prescriptions that meet current aerobic exercise recommendations, one of which also meets the guidelines for resistance exercise. No trials reported an intervention adherence of 75% or more for a set prescription that meets current exercise guidelines.ConclusionThere is little evidence suggesting that remote exercise interventions promote exercise behaviours or improve physical function in sedentary adults living with and beyond cancer. The development and evaluation of novel remote exercise interventions is needed to establish their usefulness for clinical practice. Given the social response to the COVID-19 pandemic, further research in this area is urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7987748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:North Americans spend half their waking hours engaging in sedentary behaviour. Although several recent interventions suggest that short bouts of uninterrupted sedentary behaviour may result in acute increases in cardiometabolic risk, this literature has not been reviewed systematically. This study performed a systematic review of the impact of uninterrupted sedentary behaviour lasting ?7 days on markers of cardiometabolic risk (insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance, and fasting insulin, glucose, and lipid levels) in humans. Interventions were identified through systematic searches of Medline and Embase and screened by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 25 interventions were identified that examined the impact of imposed sedentary behaviour on biomarkers of interest. The majority of these studies focused on healthy young men, with very little identified research on females or other age groups. We found consistent, moderate quality evidence that uninterrupted sedentary behaviour ?7 days results in moderate and deleterious changes in insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance, and plasma triglyceride levels. In contrast, there is inconsistent, very low-quality evidence linking uninterrupted sedentary behaviour with changes in insulin, glucose, and HDL- and LDL-cholesterol levels. These findings suggest that uninterrupted bouts of sedentary behaviour should be avoided in order to prevent or attenuate transient increases in metabolic risk.
| S-EPMC3382951 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour (SB; time spent sitting) is associated with musculoskeletal pain (MSP) conditions; however, no prior systematic review has examined these associations according to SB domains. We synthesised evidence on occupational and non-occupational SB and MSP conditions.MethodsGuided by a PRISMA protocol, eight databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and AMED) and three grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldChat, and Trove) were searched (January 1, 2000, to March 17, 2021) for original quantitative studies of adults ≥ 18 years. Clinical-condition studies were excluded. Studies' risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst checklist. For meta-analyses, random effect inverse-variance pooled effect size was estimated; otherwise, best-evidence synthesis was used for narrative review.ResultsOf 178 potentially-eligible studies, 79 were included [24 general population; 55 occupational (incuding15 experimental/intervention)]; 56 studies were of high quality, with scores > 0.75. Data for 26 were meta-synthesised. For cross-sectional studies of non-occupational SB, meta-analysis showed full-day SB to be associated with low back pain [LBP - OR = 1.19(1.03 - 1.38)]. Narrative synthesis found full-day SB associations with knee pain, arthritis, and general MSP, but the evidence was insufficient on associations with neck/shoulder pain, hip pain, and upper extremities pain. Evidence of prospective associations of full-day SB with MSP conditions was insufficient. Also, there was insufficient evidence on both cross-sectional and prospective associations between leisure-time SB and MSP conditions. For occupational SB, cross-sectional studies meta-analysed indicated associations of self-reported workplace sitting with LBP [OR = 1.47(1.12 - 1.92)] and neck/shoulder pain [OR = 1.73(1.46 - 2.03)], but not with extremities pain [OR = 1.17(0.65 - 2.11)]. Best-evidence synthesis identified inconsistent findings on cross-sectional association and a probable negative prospective association of device-measured workplace sitting with LBP-intensity in tradespeople. There was cross-sectional evidence on the association of computer time with neck/shoulder pain, but insufficient evidence for LBP and general MSP. Experimental/intervention evidence indicated reduced LBP, neck/shoulder pain, and general MSP with reducing workplace sitting.ConclusionsWe found cross-sectional associations of occupational and non-occupational SB with MSP conditions, with occupational SB associations being occupation dependent, however, reverse causality bias cannot be ruled out. While prospective evidence was inconclusive, reducing workplace sitting was associated with reduced MSP conditions. Future studies should emphasise prospective analyses and examining potential interactions with chronic diseases.Protocol registrationPROSPERO ID # CRD42020166412 (Amended to limit the scope).
| S-EPMC8666269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research examining the prevalence, physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) in shift workers show mixed results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare PA and SB in shift workers with non-shift workers following the PRISMA guidelines. Ebscohost megafile ultimate (CINHAL, E-journals, Academic search ultimate, health source consumer edition, SPORT Discus), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases were searched up to April 2021. Cross-sectional and baseline data from longitudinal studies reporting PA and SB in full time workers were eligible. Data on participants characteristics and time spent in PA and SB and/or prevalence of workers meeting PA guidelines were extracted and pooled with random effects model. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) 10-item checklist was adapted and used. A total of 49 studies met inclusion criteria and 21 studies included for meta-analysis. The prevalence of meeting physical activity guidelines (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.68, 1.03) and standardized mean difference (SMD) of time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (SMD -0.1, 95% CI: -0.4, 0.20) were similar in shift and non-shift workers. Time spent in sedentary behaviour was lower in shift workers than non-shift workers (SMD -0.2, 95% CI: 0.50, -0.001). While the differences in PA are not so evident between shift and non-shift workers, the prevalence of sufficient PA was low in both groups. These preliminary findings provide support for inclusion of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in health promotion interventions targeted at shift workers.
| S-EPMC8683943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs' current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7779649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Published data on the relationship between matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk have implicated inconclusive results. To evaluate the role of MMPs polymorphisms in ovarian cancer risk, a meta-analysis and systematic review were performed.MMPs polymorphisms which could be quantitatively synthesized were involved in meta-analysis. Five comparison models (homozygote model, heterozygote model, dominant model, recessive model, additive model) were carried out, a subgroup analysis was performed to clarify heterogeneity source. The remaining polymorphisms which could not be quantitatively synthesized were involved in systematic review.10 articles with 20 studies were included in this paper. Among those studies, 8 studies involving MMP1 rs1799750 and MMP3 rs34093618 could be meta-analyzed and 12 studies involving 12 polymorphisms could not. Meta-analysis showed that no associations were found between MMP1 rs1799750 (homozygote model: OR = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.70-1.23, POR = 0.60; heterozygote model: OR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.78-1.54, POR = 0.61; dominant model: OR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.83-1.25, POR = 0.84; recessive model: OR = 0.95, 95%CI = 0.75-1.21, POR = 0.67; additive model: OR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.85-1.17, POR = 0.99), MMP3 rs34093618 (homozygote model: OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.70-2.24, POR = 0.46; heterozygote model: OR = 1.08, 95%CI = 0.51-2.31, POR = 0.84; dominant model: OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.68-1.38, POR = 0.85; recessive model: OR = 1.12, 95%CI = 0.69-1.80, POR = 0.65; additive model: OR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.79-1.31, POR = 0.91) and ovarian cancer. Furthermore, similar results were detected in subgroup analysis. The systematic review on 12 polymorphisms suggested that MMP2 C-735T, MMP7 A-181G, MMP8 rs11225395, MMP9 rs6094237, MMP12 rs2276109, MMP20 rs2292730, MMP20 rs12278250, MMP20 rs9787933 might have a potential effect on ovarian cancer risk.In summary, polymorphisms of MMPs might not be associated with ovarian cancer risk. However, it is necessary to conduct more larger-scale, multicenter, and high-quality studies in the future.
| S-EPMC5619784 | biostudies-literature