4.5 Article Retracted Publication

被撤回的出版物: Leisure-time physical activity and the risk of metabolic syndrome: meta-analysis (Retracted article. See vol. 20, 42, 2015)

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/2047-783X-19-22

Keywords

Metabolic disorder; Quantitative review; Blood pressure; Insulin resistance; Glucose intolerance; Sensitivity analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between leisure-time physical activity (LPA) and the risk of metabolic syndrome (MS). Methods: Prospective cohort studies of the association between LPA and the risk of MS were retrieved from the PubMed and Embase databases up to 12 August 2013. The statistical analysis in this study was performed using Stata 11.0 software. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the effect of LPA on the risk of MS. Results: A total of five articles were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect sizes indicated that people with moderate level LPA (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.96, P = 0.003) or high level LPA (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.89, P = 0.012) had lower risk of MS than people with low level LPA. The subgroup analysis by gender showed that high level LPA could reduce the risk of MS in populations of different genders (female, OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.49, P <0.001; male, OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.82, P = 0.002). However, compared with low level LPA, Americans with high level LPA did not significantly reduce the risk of MS (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.82, P = 0.002), while a significant decrease of the risk of MS was found in Europeans with high level LPA (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77, P= 0.002) in the subgroup analysis by region. Conclusions: The meta-analysis confirmed that a moderate and high level of LPA could reduce the risk of MS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available