{"title":"使用可穿戴设备对减少健康成年人久坐时间和久坐时间的影响:一项网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Zihao He, Guanggao Zhao, Chao Li, Yachen Xing, Anjie Xu, Junchao Yang, Ronghui Wang","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different wearable intervention strategies in reducing sedentary time (ST) and prolonged sitting (PS) on healthy adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, Opengrey, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to 1 June 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of wearable device interventions on ST and PS among healthy adults were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>12 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Wearable+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. <b>PROSPERO registration number:</b> CRD42021290017.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of using wearable devices on reducing sedentary time and prolonged sitting in healthy adults: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zihao He, Guanggao Zhao, Chao Li, Yachen Xing, Anjie Xu, Junchao Yang, Ronghui Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different wearable intervention strategies in reducing sedentary time (ST) and prolonged sitting (PS) on healthy adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, Opengrey, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to 1 June 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of wearable device interventions on ST and PS among healthy adults were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>12 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Wearable+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. <b>PROSPERO registration number:</b> CRD42021290017.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080186\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的本研究旨在比较不同的可穿戴干预策略在减少健康成年人久坐时间(ST)和久坐时间(PS)方面的有效性:设计:网络荟萃分析(NMA):数据来源:对 PubMed、Web of Science、SPORTDiscus、ProQuest、Opengrey、Medline 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 进行了检索,截止日期为 2024 年 6 月 1 日:纳入了研究可穿戴设备干预措施对健康成年人ST和PS影响的随机对照试验(RCT):两名独立审稿人使用标准化方法对纳入的研究进行检索、筛选和编码。使用 Cochrane 工具(Risk of Bias 2.0)评估偏倚风险。数据采用频数主义框架 NMA 进行分析,以直接和间接比较五种不同干预策略(比较者)的效果。结果以标准化均值差异(SMDs)和 95% CI 的形式报告,并使用累积排名曲线下表面积(SUCRA)对最佳干预措施进行排名。五个比较方案如下(1)纯可穿戴干预(仅使用可穿戴设备进行自我监测);(2)可穿戴设备与在线干预相结合(即在线辅导和社交媒体支持);(3)可穿戴设备与离线干预相结合(即面对面的研讨会和课程);(4)对比组(即传统的非可穿戴干预);(5)对照组(即维持日常生活,等待名单):结果:共纳入了 12 项 RCT,共有 2957 人参加。NMA结果显示,与对照组、对比组和 "仅可穿戴 "组相比,"可穿戴+在线 "在减少ST方面具有明显更好的效果,效果大小为中等至较大(SMD=0.96,95% CI 0.65至1.27;SMD=0.87,95% CI 0.21至1.53;SMD=0.78,95% CI 0.14至1.42)。然而,在降低 PS 方面,各组间没有发现明显差异。在减少 ST 方面,SUCRA 值的排名依次为可穿戴+在线(98.1%)、可穿戴+离线(64.4%)、"仅可穿戴"(40.5%)、对比组(25.9%)和对照组(21.1%)。在减少 PS 方面也观察到类似的排名,概率分别为 69.9%、61.1%、59.7%、37.1% 和 22.1%:结论:可穿戴+在线是减少健康成年人ST的最佳干预策略。结论:可穿戴+在线是减少健康成年人ST的最佳干预策略。此外,基于可穿戴设备的干预措施都不能有效减少健康成年人的PS,但由于对PS的研究较少,今后应给予更多关注。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42021290017。
Effects of using wearable devices on reducing sedentary time and prolonged sitting in healthy adults: a network meta-analysis.
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different wearable intervention strategies in reducing sedentary time (ST) and prolonged sitting (PS) on healthy adults.
Design: A 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).
Results: 12 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.
Conclusions: Wearable+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. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021290017.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.