Effect of breaking up prolonged sitting with physical activity on executive function: a three-level meta-analysis.

IF 7.1 1区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Zan Huang, Mingyue Yin, Geng Li, Jinrong He, Qing Yi, Mingnan Zhuang, Bitai Wu, Meynard John Lapore Toledo, Waris Wongpipit, Wenxin Xu
{"title":"Effect of breaking up prolonged sitting with physical activity on executive function: a three-level meta-analysis.","authors":"Zan Huang, Mingyue Yin, Geng Li, Jinrong He, Qing Yi, Mingnan Zhuang, Bitai Wu, Meynard John Lapore Toledo, Waris Wongpipit, Wenxin Xu","doi":"10.1186/s12966-026-01942-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prolonged sitting has been associated with adverse effects on cognitive function, and interrupting sitting with physical activity (PA) may help mitigate these effects. However, evidence regarding the effects of PA breaks on executive function remains limited. In addition, it remains unclear how intervention characteristics may be associated with variations in effect estimates. This study aims to synthesize evidence from randomized trials on the effects of PA breaks on executive function, and to identify potentially effective intervention characteristics through moderator analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, APA PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus from database inception to April 25, 2026, for randomized trials investigating the effects of PA breaks during sedentary time on executive function. Although the eligibility criteria allowed randomized controlled trials, randomized crossover trials, and cluster-randomized trials, all studies included in the final synthesis used randomized crossover designs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 for crossover trials, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. A random-effects three-level meta-analytic model was applied to analyze main effects, exploratory moderator effects, publication bias, and sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two randomized crossover trials were included, comprising 123 effect sizes from 418 participants. Low certainty evidence suggests that, compared with uninterrupted sitting, PA breaks may be associated with a small improvement in executive function (Hedges' g = 0.13, 95% CI [0.03, 0.23], p = 0.01), particularly working memory (Hedges' g = 0.17, p = 0.02). Regrading performance metrics, reaction time (RT) performance (Hedges' g = 0.18, p < 0.01) showed a significant positive effect, whereas accuracy showed no significant effect. Exploratory moderator analyses provided preliminary evidence that intervention characteristics may be related to variations in executive function outcomes. Light-intensity activities showed a favorable pooled estimate (Hedges' g = 0.19, p < 0.01), while moderate-intensity activities did not show a significant pooled effect. For activity type, walking (Hedges' g = 0.12, p = 0.03) and stair climbing (Hedges' g = 0.70, p = 0.01) showed significant pooled effects, although the estimate for stair climbing was based on a small number of studies. Regarding frequency, 60-minute interruption intervals showed the largest pooled estimate (Hedges' g = 0.30, p = 0.01). Break duration was not a statistically significant moderator (p = 0.06), although using 3-5 min breaks showed significant pooled effect (Hedges' g = 0.16, p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interrupting prolonged sitting with PA is associated with small acute improvements in executive function, especially in the working memory and RT performance. Moderator analyses suggested that intervention characteristics such as activity intensity, type, and frequency may contribute to heterogeneity in effects. While the certainty of evidence is low and some subgroup estimates are based on a limited number of studies, these findings provide preliminary guidance for optimizing intervention design and highlight the need for further high-quality research.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>CRD420251004155.</p>","PeriodicalId":50336,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13536752/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-026-01942-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prolonged sitting has been associated with adverse effects on cognitive function, and interrupting sitting with physical activity (PA) may help mitigate these effects. However, evidence regarding the effects of PA breaks on executive function remains limited. In addition, it remains unclear how intervention characteristics may be associated with variations in effect estimates. This study aims to synthesize evidence from randomized trials on the effects of PA breaks on executive function, and to identify potentially effective intervention characteristics through moderator analysis.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, APA PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus from database inception to April 25, 2026, for randomized trials investigating the effects of PA breaks during sedentary time on executive function. Although the eligibility criteria allowed randomized controlled trials, randomized crossover trials, and cluster-randomized trials, all studies included in the final synthesis used randomized crossover designs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 for crossover trials, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. A random-effects three-level meta-analytic model was applied to analyze main effects, exploratory moderator effects, publication bias, and sensitivity analyses.

Results: Twenty-two randomized crossover trials were included, comprising 123 effect sizes from 418 participants. Low certainty evidence suggests that, compared with uninterrupted sitting, PA breaks may be associated with a small improvement in executive function (Hedges' g = 0.13, 95% CI [0.03, 0.23], p = 0.01), particularly working memory (Hedges' g = 0.17, p = 0.02). Regrading performance metrics, reaction time (RT) performance (Hedges' g = 0.18, p < 0.01) showed a significant positive effect, whereas accuracy showed no significant effect. Exploratory moderator analyses provided preliminary evidence that intervention characteristics may be related to variations in executive function outcomes. Light-intensity activities showed a favorable pooled estimate (Hedges' g = 0.19, p < 0.01), while moderate-intensity activities did not show a significant pooled effect. For activity type, walking (Hedges' g = 0.12, p = 0.03) and stair climbing (Hedges' g = 0.70, p = 0.01) showed significant pooled effects, although the estimate for stair climbing was based on a small number of studies. Regarding frequency, 60-minute interruption intervals showed the largest pooled estimate (Hedges' g = 0.30, p = 0.01). Break duration was not a statistically significant moderator (p = 0.06), although using 3-5 min breaks showed significant pooled effect (Hedges' g = 0.16, p = 0.02).

Conclusions: Interrupting prolonged sitting with PA is associated with small acute improvements in executive function, especially in the working memory and RT performance. Moderator analyses suggested that intervention characteristics such as activity intensity, type, and frequency may contribute to heterogeneity in effects. While the certainty of evidence is low and some subgroup estimates are based on a limited number of studies, these findings provide preliminary guidance for optimizing intervention design and highlight the need for further high-quality research.

Trial registration: CRD420251004155.

打破久坐与体育活动对执行功能的影响:一项三水平荟萃分析。
背景:久坐与认知功能的不良影响有关,通过身体活动(PA)来打断久坐可能有助于减轻这些影响。然而,关于PA中断对执行功能的影响的证据仍然有限。此外,目前尚不清楚干预特征如何与效果估计的变化相关联。本研究旨在综合随机试验中PA中断对执行功能影响的证据,并通过调节因子分析确定可能有效的干预特征。方法:系统检索Web of Science、PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane Library、APA PsycINFO和SPORTDiscus数据库,从数据库建立到2026年4月25日,研究久坐时间PA休息对执行功能影响的随机试验。虽然资格标准允许随机对照试验、随机交叉试验和集群随机试验,但最终综合纳入的所有研究均采用随机交叉设计。使用Cochrane交叉试验偏倚风险工具第2版评估偏倚风险,使用推荐分级、评估、发展和评价框架评估证据质量。采用随机效应三水平元分析模型分析主效应、探索性调节效应、发表偏倚和敏感性分析。结果:纳入22项随机交叉试验,包括来自418名参与者的123个效应量。低确定性证据表明,与不间断坐着相比,PA休息可能与执行功能的小幅改善有关(Hedges' g = 0.13, 95% CI [0.03, 0.23], p = 0.01),特别是工作记忆(Hedges' g = 0.17, p = 0.02)。结论:用PA打断长时间坐着与执行功能的小急性改善有关,特别是在工作记忆和RT表现方面。调节分析表明,活动强度、类型和频率等干预特征可能导致效果的异质性。虽然证据的确定性较低,一些亚组估计基于有限数量的研究,但这些发现为优化干预设计提供了初步指导,并强调了进一步高质量研究的必要性。试验注册:CRD420251004155。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
138
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (IJBNPA) is an open access, peer-reviewed journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. IJBNPA is devoted to furthering the understanding of the behavioral aspects of diet and physical activity and is unique in its inclusion of multiple levels of analysis, including populations, groups and individuals and its inclusion of epidemiology, and behavioral, theoretical and measurement research areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书