B.1. Physical Activity
Questions: What is the association between physical activity and health-related outcomes? Is there a dose response association (volume, duration, frequency, intensity)? Does the association vary by type or domain of PA?
Population: Adults 18 years of age and older
Exposure: Greater volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity
Comparison: No physical activity or lesser volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity
Table B.1.a. All-cause mortality: Association between physical activity and all-cause mortality among adults (in alphabetical order by author) (PDF, 205K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.b. CVD mortality: Association between physical activity and CVD mortality among adults (in alphabetical order by author) (PDF, 117K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.c. CVD incidence: Association between physical activity and CVD incidence among adults (in alphabetical order by author) (PDF, 70K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.d. Cancer incidence: Association between physical activity and cancer incidence among adults (in alphabetical order by author) (PDF, 76K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.e. Type 2 diabetes incidence: Association between physical activity and Type 2 diabetes incidence among adults (PDF, 67K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.e. Adiposity-related outcomes: Association between physical activity and measures of adiposity among adults, by comparison and author (PDF, 93K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.f. Mental health outcomes: Association between physical activity and measures of mental health among adults, by comparison and author (PDF, 85K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.g. Cognitive function outcomes: Association between physical activity and measures of cognitive function among adults (PDF, 84K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.h. Adverse events (PDF, 47K)
Outcome-specific AMSTAR 2 summary rating of the included systematic reviews
View in own window
Author, Year | PECO1 | A priori Methods2 | Study Design Selection3 | Search Strategy4 | Study Selection5 | Data Extraction6 | Excluded Studies7 | Included Studies8 | RoB Assess-ment9 | Funding Sources10 | Statistical Methods11 | Impact of RoB12 | RoB Results13 | Heterogeneity14 | Publication Bias15 | COI16 | Overall Rating17 |
---|
Injury | | |
Borel, 2019 (82) | Y | PY | N | PY | PY | PY | PY | N | Y | N | PY | PY | PY | Y | Y | PY | Low |
Damsted, 2018 (83) | Y | N | PY | Y | PY | PY | PY | Y | Y | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | PY | Low |
Johnston, 2018 (84) | PY | Y | PY | Y | PY | PY | PY | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | PY | Low |
Lopes, 2012 (85) | Y | N | Y | Y | PY | N | PY | PY | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | Low |
Neubauer, 2016 (86) | PY | N | N | PY | PY | N | N | N | N | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | PY | Critically Low |
Nielsen, 2012 (87) | Y | N | PY | Y | PY | N | Y | PY | Y | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N | Low |
Qu, 2014 (88) | Y | N | PY | PY | Y | PY | N | Y | PY | Y | PY | PY | N | N | Y | Y | Low |
Saragiotto, 2014 (89) | PY | N | Y | PY | PY | PY | PY | PY | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | Low |
Sobhani, 2013 (90) | PY | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | PY | Low |
Tonoli, 2010 (91) | PY | N | N | PY | N | N | N | N | PY | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N | Critically Low |
Van der Worp, 2015 (92) | PY | N | PY | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | Low |
Videbaek, 2015 (93) | PY | N | PY | Y | PY | N | PY | PY | Y | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | Low |
Osteoarthritis | | |
Alentorn-Geli, 2017 (94) | PY | N | PY | Y | PY | PY | PY | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | N | PY | Low |
Timmins, 2017 (95) | Y | Y | PY | Y | PY | PY | PY | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Moderate |
Erectile Dysfunction | | |
Sommer, 2016 (96) | PY | N | N | N | N | N | N | PY | N | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | PY | Critically Low |
Abbreviations: COI = conflict of interest; N = no; PECO = population, exposure, comparator, outcome; PY = partial yes; RoB = risk of bias; Y = yes
- 1
Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PECO?
- 2
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
- 3
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
- 4
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
- 5
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
- 6
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
- 7
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
- 8
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
- 9
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
- 10
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
- 11
If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
- 12
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
- 13
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review?
- 14
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
- 15
If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
- 16
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
- 17
Shea et al. 2017. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. (81) For each Yes, 1.0 point was given, and for each Partial Yes, 0.5 points was given. The total sum was then divided by the number of questions answered (i.e. 11 or 16). The rating ranges were described in the Methods above.
Supplementary file 2. GRADE: Grading the body of evidence (PDF, 179K)
Table B.1.i. Sleep outcomes: Association between physical activity and sleep outcomes among adults (PDF, 69K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.j. Incidence of hypertension: Association between physical activity and incidence of hypertension among adults (PDF, 61K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.k. Health-related quality of life: Association between physical activity and measures of HRQOL among adults (PDF, 56K)
See the Supplementary materials for description of evidence of US PAGAC by outcome
Table B.1.l. Occupational physical activity domain (PDF, 66K)
Criterion-specific AMSTAR 2 credibility rating, over-all rating score, overall rating, for each included review. See supplementary material 7 for all considerations
View in own window
Author, Year | PECO1 | A-priori Methods2 | Study Design Selection3 | Search Strategy4 | Study Selection5 | Data Extraction6 | Excluded Studies7 | Included Studies8 | RoB Assess-ment9 | Funding Sources10 | Statistical Methods11 | Impact of RoB12 | RoB Results13 | Heterogeneity14 | Publication Bias15 | COI16 | Rating score17 | Overall Rating18 |
---|
Samitz 2011 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.71 | Low |
Coenen 2018 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 0.78 | Moderate |
Wendel Vos 2004 | Yes | No | PY | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 0.59 | Low |
Jian Li 2013 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | PY | No | No | No | PY | Yes | 0.34 | Critically low |
Sattelmair 2011 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | PY | PY | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | no | Yes | Yes | 0.56 | Low |
Wolin 2009 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | No | No | PY | No | No | PY | PY | PY | PY | Yes | No | 0.41 | Critically low |
Mahmood, 2017 | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | PY | PY | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.59 | Low |
Boyle 2012 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.78 | Moderate |
Samad 2005 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | 0.28 | Critically low |
Robsahm 2013 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | No | No | Yes | PY | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | 0.56 | Low |
Wu Y, 2013 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | PY | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | PY | 0.5 | Low |
Pizot 2016 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | no | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 0.5 | Low |
Chen X 2019 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | PY | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | Yes | Yes | Yes | 0.75 | Moderate |
Voskuil 2007 | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | PY | Yes | No | 0.53 | Low |
Schmid 2015 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | PY | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 0.69 | Low |
Vermaete 2013 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | Yes | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | PY | No | Yes | 0.56 | Low |
Singh 2014 | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | Yes | PY | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.75 | Moderate |
Psaltopoulou 2015 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.81 | Moderate |
Chen Y 2014 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 0.69 | Low |
Behrens 2014 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | No | No | 0.5 | Low |
Behrens, 2013 | Yes | no | Yes | Yes | No | No | PY | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | no | 0.59 | Low |
Shephard 2016 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes | 0.5 | Low |
Krstev 2019 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | no | PY | Yes | no | Yes | NO | No | No | PY | no | Yes | 0.41 | Critically low |
Benke, 2018 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.69 | Low |
Shephard, 2017 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | No | Yes | 0.5 | Low |
Liu 2011 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | Yes | Yes | 0.81 | Moderate |
O Rorke, 2010 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | PY | Yes | No | 0.41 | Critically low |
Bao 2008 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | No | PY | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | PY | No | Yes | Yes | 0.53 | Low |
Keimling 2014 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | No | PY | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | 0.47 | Critically low |
Aune 2015 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | 0.75 | Moderate |
McWilliams 2011 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | 0.5 | Low |
Gignac 2019 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | No | no | 0.58 | Low |
Palmer 2012 | Yes | No | No | PY | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | No | No | No | no | 0.32 | Critically low |
White 2017 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | PY | Yes | PY | PY | Yes | 0.88 | Moderate |
Yang B, 2018 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | PY | No | No | Yes | No | PY | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | 0.5 | Low |
Huai 2013 | Yes | No | Yes | PY | No | PY | PY | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | no | 0.59 | Low |
Abbreviations: COI = conflict of interest; PICO = population, intervention, comparator, outcome; PY = partial yes; RoB = risk of bias
- 1
Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?
- 2
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
- 3
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
- 4
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
- 5
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
- 6
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
- 7
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
- 8
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
- 9
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
- 10
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
- 11
If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
- 12
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
- 13
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review?
- 14
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
- 15
If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
- 16
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
- 17
This score is based on the following calculation (Yes=1point, PY=0.5 point). Take the total amount of points and divide these the number of questions answered.
- 17
Shea et al. 2017. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (76).
1.0. All-cause mortality (PDF, 89K)
Population: Adults (aged 18–64 years)
Exposure: Duration, frequency and/or intensity of OPA, or a compositional score reflecting total volume of OPA.
Comparison: No OPA, or a lesser duration, frequency and/or intensity, no or a smaller compositional score of total volume of OPA.
Outcome: All-cause mortality.
2.0. Cardio-vascular disease (PDF, 100K)
3.0. Cancer (PDF, 233K)
4.0. Diabetes Mellitus type 2 (PDF, 88K)
Population: Adults (aged 18–64 years)
Exposure: Duration, frequency and/or intensity of OPA, or a compositional score reflecting total volume of OPA.
Comparison: No OPA, or a lesser duration, frequency and/or intensity, no or a smaller compositional score of total volume of OPA.
Outcome: Diabetes type 2
5.0. Osteoarthritis (PDF, 92K)
Population: Adults (aged 18–64 years)
Exposure: Duration, frequency and/or intensity of OPA, or a compositional score reflecting total volume of OPA.
Comparison: No OPA, or a lesser duration, frequency and/or intensity, no or a smaller compositional score of total volume of OPA.
Outcome: Osteoarthritis
6.0. Mental Health (PDF, 85K)
Population: Adults (aged 18–64 years)
Exposure: Duration, frequency and/or intensity of OPA, or a compositional score reflecting total volume of OPA.
Comparison: No OPA, or a lesser duration, frequency and/or intensity, no or a smaller compositional score of total volume of OPA.
Outcome: Osteoarthritis
7.0. Sleep quality and/or duration (PDF, 89K)
Population: Adults (aged 18–64 years)
Exposure: Duration, frequency and/or intensity of OPA, or a compositional score reflecting total volume of OPA.
Comparison: No OPA, or a lesser duration, frequency and/or intensity, no or a smaller compositional score of total volume of OPA.
Outcome: Sleep quality/and or duration
8.0. Hypertension (PDF, 85K)
Population: Adults (aged 18–64 years)
Exposure: Duration, frequency and/or intensity of OPA, or a compositional score reflecting total volume of OPA.
Comparison: No OPA, or a lesser duration, frequency and/or intensity, no or a smaller compositional score of total volume of OPA.
Outcome: Hypertension
9.0. Abbreviation list (PDF, 44K)