↓ Skip to main content

Too much sitting and all-cause mortality: is there a causal link?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
65 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Too much sitting and all-cause mortality: is there a causal link?
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3307-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart J. H. Biddle, Jason A. Bennie, Adrian E. Bauman, Josephine Y. Chau, David Dunstan, Neville Owen, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Jannique G. Z. van Uffelen

Abstract

Sedentary behaviours (time spent sitting, with low energy expenditure) are associated with deleterious health outcomes, including all-cause mortality. Whether this association can be considered causal has yet to be established. Using systematic reviews and primary studies from those reviews, we drew upon Bradford Hill's criteria to consider the likelihood that sedentary behaviour in epidemiological studies is likely to be causally related to all-cause (premature) mortality. Searches for systematic reviews on sedentary behaviours and all-cause mortality yielded 386 records which, when judged against eligibility criteria, left eight reviews (addressing 17 primary studies) for analysis. Exposure measures included self-reported total sitting time, TV viewing time, and screen time. Studies included comparisons of a low-sedentary reference group with several higher sedentary categories, or compared the highest versus lowest sedentary behaviour groups. We employed four Bradford Hill criteria: strength of association, consistency, temporality, and dose-response. Evidence supporting causality at the level of each systematic review and primary study was judged using a traffic light system depicting green for causal evidence, amber for mixed or inconclusive evidence, and red for no evidence for causality (either evidence of no effect or no evidence reported). The eight systematic reviews showed evidence for consistency (7 green) and temporality (6 green), and some evidence for strength of association (4 green). There was no evidence for a dose-response relationship (5 red). Five reviews were rated green overall. Twelve (67 %) of the primary studies were rated green, with evidence for strength and temporality. There is reasonable evidence for a likely causal relationship between sedentary behaviour and all-cause mortality based on the epidemiological criteria of strength of association, consistency of effect, and temporality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 199 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 17%
Student > Master 32 16%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 46 23%
Unknown 36 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 18%
Sports and Recreations 32 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 14%
Psychology 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 58 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2023.
All research outputs
#362,638
of 25,380,459 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#322
of 17,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,364
of 376,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#9
of 354 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 376,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 354 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.