Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Promote a Healthy Diet and Physical Activity for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Adults Without Known Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors : Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Abstract Objective To examine the dose-response associations between accelerometer assessed total physical activity, different intensities of physical activity, and sedentary time and all cause mortality. Design Systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, Sport Discus from inception to 31 July 2018. Eligibility criteria Prospective cohort studies assessing physical activity and sedentary time by accelerometry and associations with all cause mortality and reported effect estimates as hazard ratios, odds ratios, or relative risks with 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and analysis Guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews for observational studies and PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts. One author performed a full text review and another extracted the data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. Individual level participant data were harmonised and analysed at study level. Data on physical activity were categorised by quarters at study level, and study specific associations with all cause mortality were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Study specific results were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. Main outcome measure All cause mortality. Results 39 studies were retrieved for full text review; 10 were eligible for inclusion, three were excluded owing to harmonisation challenges (eg, wrist placement of the accelerometer), and one study did not participate. Two additional studies with unpublished mortality data were also included. Thus, individual level data from eight studies (n=36 383; mean age 62.6 years; 72.8% women), with median follow-up of 5.8 years (range 3.0-14.5 years) and 2149 (5.9%) deaths were analysed. Any physical activity, regardless of intensity, was associated with lower risk of mortality, with a non-linear dose-response. Hazards ratios for mortality were 1.00 (referent) in the first quarter (least active), 0.48 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.54) in the second quarter, 0.34 (0.26 to 0.45) in the third quarter, and 0.27 (0.23 to 0.32) in the fourth quarter (most active). Corresponding hazards ratios for light physical activity were 1.00, 0.60 (0.54 to 0.68), 0.44 (0.38 to 0.51), and 0.38 (0.28 to 0.51), and for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity were 1.00, 0.64 (0.55 to 0.74), 0.55 (0.40 to 0.74), and 0.52 (0.43 to 0.61). For sedentary time, hazards ratios were 1.00 (referent; least sedentary), 1.28 (1.09 to 1.51), 1.71 (1.36 to 2.15), and 2.63 (1.94 to 3.56). Conclusion Higher levels of total physical activity, at any intensity, and less time spent sedentary, are associated with substantially reduced risk for premature mortality, with evidence of a non-linear dose-response pattern in middle aged and older adults. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018091808. Show more

Egger's regression test is often used to help detect publication bias in meta-analyses. However, the performance of this test and the usual funnel plot have been challenged particularly when the summary estimate is the natural log of the odds ratio (lnOR). To compare the performance of Egger's regression test with a regression test based on sample size (a modification of Macaskill's test) with lnOR as the summary estimate. Simulation of meta-analyses under a number of scenarios in the presence and absence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Type I error rates (the proportion of false-positive results) for each regression test and their power to detect publication bias when it is present (the proportion of true-positive results). Type I error rates for Egger's regression test are higher than those for the alternative regression test. The alternative regression test has the appropriate type I error rates regardless of the size of the underlying OR, the number of primary studies in the meta-analysis, and the level of between-study heterogeneity. The alternative regression test has comparable power to Egger's regression test to detect publication bias under conditions of low between-study heterogeneity. Because of appropriate type I error rates and reduction in the correlation between the lnOR and its variance, the alternative regression test can be used in place of Egger's regression test when the summary estimates are lnORs. Show more