Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Br J Sports Med. 2021 Mar 29;56(2):101–106. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103640

Table 1.

Source Studies, Summary Relative Risks for Physical Inactivity, and Associated Global Population Attributable Risks

Outcome/Study Study Design Comparisons for Summary Relative Risk Summary Relative Risk (95% CI) PARsemi(95% CI)
All-Cause Mortality
Lee et al. 20122 		Meta-analysis of 32 prospective cohort studies Low versus moderate leisure-time physical activity 1.28 (1.21 to 1.36) 7.2 (5.4 to 9.0)
Cardiovascular Disease Mortality
Cheng et al. 201814 		Meta-analysis of 40 prospective cohort studies Low versus moderate recreational physical activity 1.30(1.23 to 1.35) 7.6 (6.1 to 9.3)
Dementia
Guure et al. 201715 		Meta-analysis of 25 prospective cohort studies Lowest versus moderate levels of physical activity 1.32 (1.06 to 1.64) 8.1 (2.6 to 14.9)
Depression
Schuch et al. 201813 		Meta-analysis of 4 prospective cohort studies Lowest versus 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week 1.28 (1.01 to 1.62) 7.2 (1.3 to 14.5)
Coronary Heart Disease
Kyu et al. 201611 		Meta-analysis of 43 prospective cohort studies <600 MET-min/week versus 600–3999 MET-min/week of total physical activity across all domains 1.19 (1.13 to 1.26) 5.0 (3.5 to 6.5)
Stroke
Kyu et al. 201611 		Meta-analysis of 26 prospective cohort studies <600 MET-min/week versus 600–3999 MET-min/week of total physical activity across all domains 1.19 (1.09 to 1.28) 5.0 (2.9 to 7.3)
Type 2 Diabetes
Kyu et al. 201611 		Meta-analysis of 55 prospective cohort studies <600 MET-min/week versus 600–3999 MET-min/week of total physical activity across all domains 1.17 (1.11 to 1.23) 4.5 (3.1 to 6.0)
Hypertension
Liu et al. 201712 		Meta-analysis of 24 prospective cohort studies None versus 10 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity 1.06(1.03 to 1.09) 1.6 (1.0 to 2.4)
Bladder Cancer
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.08(0.93 to 1.25) 2.2 (−0.3 to 16.2)
Breast Cancer*
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.09(1.03 to 1.15) 2.8 (1.2 to 4.4)
Colon Cancer
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.11 (1.03 to 1.19) 2.9 (1.2 to 4.9)
Endometrial Cancer*
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.09 (0.96 to 1.22) 2.8 (−0.4 to 6.4)
Esophaeeal Cancer
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.28 (0.85 to 1.96) 7.2 (−2.3 to 20.9)
Gastric Cancer
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.27 (0.93 to 1.69) 6.9 (−0.3 to 16.2)
Renal Cancer
Matthews et al. 202016 		Pooled analysis of data from 9 prospective cohorts None versus 7.5 – 14.9 MET-h/week of leisure-time physical activity. 1.28 (1.06 to 1.54) 7.2 (2.4 to 12.9)

The global prevalence of insufficient physical activity of 27.5% (95% CI: 25.0 to 32.2) was applied to compute the PARsemi.

*

The global prevalence of insufficient physical activity among women of 31.7% (95% CI: 28.6 to 39.0) was applied to compute the PARsemi for breast cancer and endometrial cancer.