Trial reportScientific reports2025
The impact of breaking up prolonged sitting with physical activity during simulated dayshifts and nightshifts on sleep architecture: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sleep and sleep disorders: much more than how long you sleep, what truly matters is How you sleep.Scientific reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inadequate sleep is common and contributes to poor health outcomes. Physical activity has a positive impact on sleep outcomes, however the prevalence of physical inactivity is increasing, coupled with the rise of sedentary behaviour at work. Interventions that promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour are essential, as they can improve sleep. The current study investigated the effects of breaking up prolonged sitting with physical activity during the day or night, compared to not breaking up sitting, on sleep architecture during a 9 h or 5 h sleep opportunity. Participants (n = 125, 51% male, 23.4 ± 4.8 years of age) completed an in-laboratory sleep study, with five simulated shifts during the day or night. Sleep opportunities were either 9 h or 5 h following each shift. Participants were allocated to one of six conditions: Sit9D or Break9D (sedentary or breaking up sitting day and 9 h sleep opportunity), Sit5D or Break5D (sedentary or breaking up sitting day and 5 h sleep opportunity), or Sit9N or Break9N (sedentary or breaking up sitting night and 9 h sleep opportunity). Sleep was monitored using polysomnography. In the analysis of day shifts, mixed model ANOVAs demonstrated a significant physical activity *sleep opportunity interaction for total sleep time (p < 0.001), sleep onset latency (p < 0.001), time spent in N2 (p < 0.001) and N3 (p = 0.03). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the 9 h sleep opportunity conditions had longer total sleep time, shorter sleep onset latency, and more slow-wave sleep (N3) during sleep opportunities 1-4 but not sleep opportunity 5. There were no significant differences in sleep architecture between physical activity condition for the nightshift conditions. Better sleep quality was seen in the 9 h condition compared to the 5 h condition, and breaking up sitting did not affect sleep. Given the benefits of breaking up sitting on health, our findings suggest a breaking up sitting intervention can be promoted without detrimental impacts on sleep.
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.