Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35135760›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Association of occupational sitting with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review with a sex-sensitive/gender-sensitive perspective.

Kathrin Reichel, Michaela Prigge, Ute Latza, Tobias Kurth, Eva-Maria Backé

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. The physical activity health paradox: what is it, why might it happen, and where to go from here?The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kathrin ReichelWork and Health, Federal Office for Health and Safety in the Workplace Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2864-9621
Michaela PriggeWork and Health, Federal Office for Health and Safety in the Workplace Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ute LatzaWork and Health, Federal Office for Health and Safety in the Workplace Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Tobias KurthInstitute of Public Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7169-2620
Eva-Maria BackéWork and Health, Federal Office for Health and Safety in the Workplace Berlin, Berlin, Germany backe.eva-maria@baua.bund.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSedentary behaviour is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular health. Although long periods of sedentary behaviour take place at work, evidence of the relationship between such occupational sitting and cardiometabolic health risks remains limited. This systematic review aimed to update the evidence on the associations of occupational sitting with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiometabolic risk factors based on longitudinal studies.

designSystematic review.

settingWorkplace. POPULATION: Employees aged 18-65 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were cardiovascular diseases and cardiometabolic risk markers. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL (search January 2018, updated February 2019). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened, extracted and appraised by three independent reviewers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

resultsStudies were markedly heterogeneous in terms of measurement of occupational sitting, cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, so that standards were hardly identifiable and limiting the value of the evidence. The review included 27 high or acceptable quality publications. Of the eight high-quality publications from seven cohorts, three cohort studies found significant associations of occupational sitting with primary outcomes. Additionally, one study described an association with the secondary outcome. Another high-quality publication found an association between occupational sitting and ischaemic heart disease in a subgroup already at risk due to hypertension. For sex/gender analysis, 11 of the 27 high and acceptable quality publications reported sex-stratified results. Five of these found sex differences.

conclusionsEvidence regarding the association of occupational sitting with cardiometabolic health risks was limited because of the lack of standardised measurements for occupational sitting. Occupational sitting combined with an overall sedentary lifestyle was associated with an elevated relative risk for several cardiometabolic outcomes. There is an urgent need for standardised measurements of occupational sitting to facilitate meta-analysis. Sex/gender aspects of this relationship require further investigation.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesSedentary BehaviorAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSex FactorsWorkplaceYoung Adultcardiologydiabetes & endocrinologyepidemiologyoccupational & industrial medicinepreventive medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID35135760
PMCPMC8830241

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.