SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Occupational Physical Activity and Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between physical activity and gynecological cancers: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Physical activity at work may not be health enhancing. A systematic review with meta-analysis on the association between occupational physical activity and cardiovascular disease mortality covering 23 studies with 655 892 participants.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2022Pooled it
- Occupational Physical Activity and Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Pooled it
- Association between reproductive history and chronic low back pain in the US women: a cross-sectional study.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Occupational physical workload and risk of lung cancer and chronic respiratory diseases: a prospective cohort study of the UK Biobank.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Occupational physical activity and incidence and mortality of 14 cancers in 404,249 adults.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Survival assessment and pre-diagnostic risk factors for lung cancer incidence: Insights from the Golestan Cohort Study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Update on Occupational Cancer for Better Cancer Prevention and Control.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Review
- The Physical Activity and Cancer Control (PACC) framework: update on the evidence, guidelines, and future research priorities.British journal of cancer · 2024Review
- Physical activity and tobacco smoking in the German adult population.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Re: Cillekens B, Huysmans MA, Holtermann A, van Mechelen W, Straker L, Krause N, van der Beek AJ, Coenen P. Physical activity at work may not be health enhancing. A systematic review with meta-analysis on the association between occupational physical activity and cardiovascular disease mortality covering 23 studies with 655 892 participants. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2022;48(2):86-98. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3993.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Physical activity and risk of lung cancer: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2023Article
- Etiology of lung cancer: Evidence from epidemiologic studies.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2022Review
- An Exploratory Study on the Physical Activity Health Paradox-Musculoskeletal Pain and Cardiovascular Load during Work and Leisure in Construction and Healthcare Workers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo deliver a systematic review of the literature synthesizing data on the association of occupational physical activity with lung cancer risk in observational studies.
designSystematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCE: A literature search was performed in the electronic databases of PubMed/Medline and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We screened peer-reviewed articles from prospective cohort and case-control studies assessing the association of occupational physical activity with lung cancer risk. A sex-specific meta-analysis assessed the association of high (compared to low/sedentary) level occupational physical activity with lung cancer risk, estimating the relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThe systematic search identified 2065 articles, among which, eight journal articles met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis adjusted for age, smoking status and/or intensity, with a pooled sample size of 532,282 participants (men: 219,410; women: 312,872). A random-effect model of four prospective and four case-control studies indicated that men who engage in high-level occupational physical activity had a 15% higher risk (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.28) of lung cancer than those engaging in low/sedentary-level occupational physical activity. There was no association observed among women (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.34) based on three available studies (prospective cohort: n = 2; case-control: n = 1).
conclusionsFindings from the review suggest a higher risk of lung cancer among men reporting high-level occupational physical activity. Further prospective studies incorporating rigorous measures of domain-specific physical activity, detailed smoking status and intensity, and other occupational exposures are needed to elucidate this association. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42019137911.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.