ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Scoping review of physical activity and sedentary behavior in Brazilian national surveys: a protocol study.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study presents a scoping review protocol aimed at analyzing the methodological and structural characteristics of studies on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) that use the databases of the Brazilian National Health Survey (PNS), the Brazilian National School Health Survey (PeNSE), and the Brazilian Surveillance of Risk and Protective Factors for Chronic Diseases by Telephone Survey (Vigitel). PA, associated with multisectoral health benefits, and SB, linked to deleterious effects, have been widely investigated as part of public policies in Brazil. However, the absence of a centralized repository limits the efficiency of using these data, resulting in redundant publications with limited impact.
methodsThe review will be conducted according to the guidelines and checklists of the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR, covering studies of any population, operating with broad definitions of PA and SB. In addition, it will seek to identify methodological discrepancies and promote the integration of evidence in an open-access online platform. The sources include four scientific databases (LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). DISCUSSION: This protocol emphasizes the relevance of open science, aligning with UNESCO recommendations to increase transparency and scientific collaboration. The results are expected to guide evidence-based policies and strengthen public health practices. The study is a strategic response to the fragmentation of the literature, proposing to consolidate existing data, optimize its reuse, and foster interdisciplinarity in the field of public health.
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.