ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2024
Device-measured stationary behaviour and cardiovascular and orthostatic circulatory disease incidence.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Device-measured movement behaviours and cancer incidence in a population sample of UK adults: Dual 24-hour analyses of postural and intensity compositions.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of wrist- and thigh-worn accelerometer algorithms using self-training machine learning models for classification of activity type and posture: towards device placement-agnostic methods in the ProPASS consortium.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Response to "Occupational physical behavior in eldercare workers: moving beyond description toward health implications".Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Accelerometer-based assessment of occupational standing time and its association with venous disorders - results of a cross-sectional field study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Neuroexistential psychotherapy: bridging the gap.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Greater amount of lying and reclining associate with cardiovascular disease risk score and several risk factors, while short sitting bouts and standing have opposite relation.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Differences in the temporal patterns of occupational time on feet and sitting between homecare and nursing home workers.Annals of work exposures and health · 2025Article
- Is Sitting Really the New Smoking? Health of North American Workers Exposed to Prolonged Static Standing.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2025Article
- Standing in the shadows: is standing a tonic or a toxin for cardiometabolic health?British journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have indicated that standing may be beneficially associated with surrogate metabolic markers, whereas more time spent sitting has an adverse association. Studies assessing the dose-response associations of standing, sitting and composite stationary behaviour time with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and orthostatic circulatory disease are scarce and show an unclear picture.
objectiveTo examine associations of daily sitting, standing and stationary time with CVD and orthostatic circulatory disease incidence.
methodsWe used accelerometer data from 83 013 adults (mean age ± standard deviation = 61.3 ± 7.8; female = 55.6%) from the UK Biobank to assess daily time spent sitting and standing. Major CVD was defined as coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke. Orthostatic circulatory disease was defined as orthostatic hypotension, varicose vein, chronic venous insufficiency and venous ulcers. To estimate the dose-response hazard ratios (HR) we used Cox proportional hazards regression models and restricted cubic splines. The Fine-Gray subdistribution method was used to account for competing risks.
resultsDuring 6.9 (±0.9) years of follow-up, 6829 CVD and 2042 orthostatic circulatory disease events occurred. When stationary time exceeded 12 h/day, orthostatic circulatory disease risk was higher by an average HR (95% confidence interval) of 0.22 (0.16, 0.29) per hour. Every additional hour above 10 h/day of sitting was associated with a 0.26 (0.18, 0.36) higher risk. Standing more than 2 h/day was associated with an 0.11 (0.05, 0.18) higher risk for every additional 30 min/day. For major CVD, when stationary time exceeded 12 h/day, risk was higher by an average of 0.13 (0.10, 0.16) per hour. Sitting time was associated with a 0.15 (0.11, 0.19) higher risk per extra hour. Time spent standing was not associated with major CVD risk.
conclusionsTime spent standing was not associated with CVD risk but was associated with higher orthostatic circulatory disease risk. Time spent sitting above 10 h/day was associated with both higher orthostatic circulatory disease and major CVD risk. The deleterious associations of overall stationary time were primarily driven by sitting. Collectively, our findings indicate increasing standing time as a prescription may not lower major CVD risk and may lead to higher orthostatic circulatory disease risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.