Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38719462›Full record

ArticlePhysical activity and nutrition2024

Influence of sitting time on pulmonary function in computerusing office workers.

Aditi Upmanyu, Amit Kumar, Varun Kalia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical activity and nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Aditi UpmanyuDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India.
Amit KumarDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India.
Varun KaliaDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to identify the changes in pulmonary function after prolonged sitting. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) allow physicians to assess the respiratory capability of patients under numerous clinical circumstances and when there are risk factors for lung sickness, occupational exposure, and pulmonary toxicity. PFTs are routinely performed in the standing or high sitting position because of the devices and patient comfort.

methodsA total of 180 asymptomatic office workers were recruited as eligibility criteria and divided into three groups according to their daily sitting duration (group 1:2-4 h, group 2:4-6 h, and group 3: > 6 h). PFTs were performed twice consecutively to determine the mean of the readings. A Helios 401 spirometer was used to quantify lung function. The parameters were "forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)", "forced vital capacity (FVC)", "peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)", and the "ratio of FEV1 to FVC (FEV1/FVC)".

resultsOur results suggest that noteworthy changes were present in the lung function of all the participants. For individuals with > 6 h of sitting; FVC, FEV1, and PEFR were higher compared to those of the participants with 2-4 h and 4-6 h of sitting. The FEV1/FVC ratio was also reduced in individuals with prolonged hours of sitting.

conclusionBody position impacts the result of PFTs; however, that as it may, the ideal position and extent of advantage changed between the review populaces. These results suggested that noteworthy changes occur in the lung function of healthy individuals exposed to sitting time.

Indexed as

body compositionlung healthoffice workerprolonged sittingpulmonary functionspirometer

Identifiers

PMID38719462
PMCPMC11079380

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.