Summary of findings 2.
Sit‐stand desks for reducing sitting at work: RCTs
| Sit‐stand desks versus no intervention for reducing sitting at work | ||||||
|
Patient or population: employees who sit at work Settings: workplace Intervention: sit‐stand desk Comparison: no intervention | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Sit‐stand desk | no intervention | |||||
|
Time spent sitting at work /8‐hour workday Accelerometer‐inclinometer Follow‐up: short term |
The mean time spent sitting at work in the control group was 343 minutes 4 | The mean time spent sitting at work in the intervention group was 96 minutes less (110 to 83 less) | 70 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | ||
|
Time spent sitting at work /8‐hour workday Self‐reported questionnaires Follow‐up: median 8 weeks |
The mean time spent sitting at work in the control group was 387 minutes5 | The mean time spent sitting at work in the intervention group was 80 minutes less (129 to 31 less) |
44 (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3 | ||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk Ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Risk of bias high due to unconcealed allocation and lack of blinding of participants and personnel, downgraded one level
2 Unrealistic confidence interval, downgraded one level
3 Imprecision with wide confidence intervals, small sample size, downgraded one level
4 Mean value from control groups
5 Sitting time in the control group