Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32718266›Full record

ArticleScottish medical journal2021

Sedentarism and chronic disease risk in COVID 19 lockdown - a scoping review.

Baskaran Chandrasekaran, Thiru Balaji Ganesan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Scottish medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Baskaran ChandrasekaranAssistant Professor, Department of Exercise & Sports Sciences, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1439-9158
Thiru Balaji GanesanProgrammer Analyst Trainee, Cognizant KNC, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThough viewed as a critical measure to prevent the spread of the virus, a prolonged homestay may result in unfavourable sedentary behaviour and chronic disease risk. This systematic review focuses on sedentary behaviour resulting from this quarantine period which may elevate the cardiovascular disease risk, obesity, hypertension, cancer and mental health illness.

methodsEvidence of breaking sedentary behaviour and global recommendations were investigated. Potential unanswered questions regarding sedentary behaviour and physical activity during lockdown were explored.

resultsFive systematic reviews and six prospective trials explored the effect of sedentarism affecting chronic disease through potential pathophysiological mechanisms. Sedentary behaviour especially prolonged sitting is found to be a pleiotropic risk factor with altered energy expenditure, adipogenic signalling, immunomodulation, autonomic stability and hormonal dysregulation perpetuating underlying chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and mental health disorders.

conclusionBreaking sitting and physical activity are found to reverse the adverse effects associated with excessive sitting during the lockdown.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlPublic PolicySedentary BehaviorCardiometabolic Risk FactorsCardiovascular DiseasesChronic DiseaseCOVID-19ExerciseHumansMental DisordersNeoplasmsObesitySARS-CoV-2cardiovascular diseasechronic diseaseexerciseobesityphysical activitySitting

Identifiers

PMID32718266
PMCPMC8685753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.