ArticleBMJ open2024
Effects of using wearable devices on reducing sedentary time and prolonged sitting in healthy adults: a network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Digital communication tools used to promote healthy lifestyles: an overview of reviews from the BRIDGE project.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Cardiac Conduction Disorder: A Matter of Habit?JACC. Asia · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different wearable intervention strategies in reducing sedentary time (ST) and prolonged sitting (PS) on healthy adults.
designA network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, Opengrey, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to 1 June 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of wearable device interventions on ST and PS among healthy adults were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Bias risks were assessed using Cochrane tools (Risk of Bias 2.0). Data were analysed using a frequentist framework NMA to directly and indirectly compare the effects of the five different intervention strategies (comparators). The results were reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CI and surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the best interventions. The five comparators were as follows: (1) wearable-only intervention (only using wearable devices for self-monitoring); (2) wearable combined with online intervention (ie, online coaching and social media support); (3) wearable combined with offline intervention (ie, face-to-face seminars and courses); (4) comparison group (ie, traditional, non-wearable interventions); (5) control group (ie, maintaining daily routine, waitlist).
results12 RCTs with a total of 2957 participants were included. Results of NMA showed that the 'wearable+online' has significantly better effects in reducing ST compared with control group, comparison group and 'wearable only', with moderate to large effect sizes (SMD=0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27; SMD=0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.53; SMD=0.78, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42, respectively). However, no significant differences were identified between the groups in reducing PS. The SUCRA values were ranked as wearable+online (98.1%), wearable+offline (64.4%,), 'wearable only' (40.5%), comparison group (25.9%) and control group (21.1%) for ST reduction. Similar rankings were observed for PS reduction, with probabilities of 69.9%, 61.1%, 59.7%, 37.1% and 22.1%, respectively.
conclusionsWearable+online is the best intervention strategy for reducing ST in healthy adults. Additionally, none of the wearable-based interventions effectively reduced PS in healthy adults, but as there is little research on PS, it should receive more attention in the future.
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.