Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29449219›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of sports medicine2018

Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in 0-5-year-olds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Katherine L Downing, Jill A Hnatiuk, Trina Hinkley, Jo Salmon, Kylie D Hesketh

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of sports medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Identifying effective intervention strategies to reduce children's screen time: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Katherine L DowningDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Jill A HnatiukDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Trina HinkleyDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Jo SalmonDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Kylie D HeskethDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIM OR

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions that report sedentary behaviour outcomes during early childhood.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Global Health, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus with Full Text and EMBASE electronic databases were searched in March 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Inclusion criteria were: (1) published in a peer-reviewed English language journal; (2) sedentary behaviour outcomes reported; (3) randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design; and (4) participants were children with a mean age of ≤5.9 years and not yet attending primary/elementary school at postintervention.

results31 studies were included in the systematic review and 17 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall mean difference in screen time outcomes between groups was -17.12 (95% CI -28.82 to -5.42) min/day with a significant overall intervention effect (Z=2.87, p=0.004). The overall mean difference in sedentary time between groups was -18.91 (95% CI -33.31 to -4.51) min/day with a significant overall intervention effect (Z=2.57, p=0.01). Subgroup analyses suggest that for screen time, interventions of ≥6 months duration and those conducted in a community-based setting are most effective. For sedentary time, interventions targeting physical activity (and reporting changes in sedentary time) are more effective than those directly targeting sedentary time. SUMMARY/

conclusionsDespite heterogeneity in study methods and results, overall interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in early childhood show significant reductions, suggesting that this may be an opportune time to intervene. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017090.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionSedentary BehaviorChild BehaviorChild, PreschoolHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicChildMeta-analysisSedentary

Identifiers

PMID29449219
PMCPMC5867408

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.