ArticleBMC public health2022
The combination of cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular fitness, and prevalence of diabetes mellitus in middle-aged and older men: WASEDA'S Health Study.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength during pregnancy with metabolic health outcomes and inflammatory parameters at 1-year postpartum in women after gestational diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology. Endocrinology reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Cardiorespiratory fitness and metabolic risk in Chinese population: evidence from a prospective cohort study.BMC public health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the negative relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) or muscular fitness and diabetes mellitus were respectively observed in many previous studies, there is still a lack of studies that include CRF and muscular fitness simultaneously. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between the combination of CRF and muscular fitness and diabetes through a cross-sectional study.
methodsThis study was part of WASEDA'S Health Study, a cohort study launched in 2014. We used a part of the baseline data collected for this study. Maximal exercise test using a cycle ergometer and leg extension power (LEP) test were respectively used to evaluate CRF and muscular fitness. Since LEP is affected by body weight, relative LEP (rLEP) which is LEP per body weight, was used as an index of muscular fitness. 796 men (56.5 ± 10.4 years old) who completed a medical examination and fitness tests, were divided into two groups based on CRF and rLEP, respectively. The prevalence of diabetes was collected based on a self-reported questionnaire or blood test. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the prevalence of diabetes were obtained using logistic regression models while adjusting for age, body mass index, exercise habits, family history of diabetes, smoking habits, and drinking habits.
results55 (7%) participants had diabetes. Compared to participants with lower CRF or rLEP, the odds ratio (95% CIs) of diabetes in those with higher CRF or rLEP was 0.46 (0.21-0.98) or 0.34 (0.16-0.74), respectively. Furthermore, using the lower CRF and lower rLEP group as the reference, the odds ratio (95% CIs) for the lower CRF and higher rLEP group was 0.32 (0.12-0.88), and higher CRF and higher rLEP group was 0.21 (0.07-0.63), after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
conclusionsCRF and rLEP have independent and joint inverse associations with diabetes prevalence. In addition, participants with high CRF and high rLEP had a lower prevalence of diabetes compared to those with only high CRF or only high rLEP.
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.