ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024
Accelerometer-measured physical activity, sedentary behavior, and risk of incident pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study in the UK Biobank.
Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data Analytics in Physical Activity Studies With Accelerometers: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Bidirectional Relationships between Sarcopenia and Pelvic Floor Disorders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies on physical activity (PA) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) were largely limited to self-reported PA in athletes, soldiers, and women in postpartum. We aimed to investigate the association of accelerometer-measured PA and sedentary behavior with the risk of POP in middle-aged and elderly women.
methodsIn this prospective cohort derived from the UK Biobank, the intensity and duration of PA and sedentary behavior were measured with wrist-worn accelerometers over a 7-day period in 2013-2015 for 47,674 participants (aged 42.8-77.9 years) without pre-existing POP. Participants were followed up until the end of 2022, during which incident POP was ascertained mainly by the electronic health records. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models and restricted cubic splines were used to assess the associations of interest. Isotemporal substitution models were applied to test the effects of substituting a type of activity with equivalent duration of others.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 8.0 years, 779 cases of POP were recorded. The duration of light-intensity PA (LPA) was positively whereas sedentary time was negatively associated with the risk of POP. Every additional 1 h/day of LPA elevated the risk of POP by 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-26%). In contrast, the risk decreased by 5% (95% CI, 0-8%) per 1 h/day increment in sedentary behavior. No associations were found between moderate-intensity PA (MPA) or vigorous-intensity PA (VPA) and POP, except that women who had a history of hysterectomy were more likely to develop POP when performing more VPA (53% higher risk for every additional 15 min/day). Substituting 1 h/day of LPA with equivalent sedentary time was associated with a 18% (95% CI, 11%-24%) lower risk of POP. The risk can also be reduced by 17% (95% CI, 7%-25%) through substituting 30 min/day of LPA with MPA.
conclusionsMore time spent in LPA or less sedentary time was linked to an elevated risk of POP in middle-aged and elderly women, while MPA or VPA was not. Substituting LPA with equivalent duration of sedentary behavior or MPA may lower the risk of POP.
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.