Table 3:

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the impact of public restrictive measures on physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Author, Year	Included studies (physical activity definition)	Participants	Results
Pérez-Gisbert et al., 2021 [142]	5 studies (2 studies accelerometers, 3 questionnaires)	667 patients with chronic diseases	↓ physical activity levels [SMD −0.29 (95% CI −0.40 to −0.18), P < .00001, I2 = 13%]
Ng et al., 2022 [86]	36 studies (5 studies accelerometer/ pedometer, 8 questionnaires, 9 no clear definition)	800 256 participants with or without chronic diseases	↓ step count [SMD −2.789 (95% CI −3.667 to −1.912), P < .01, I2 = 100%], ↓ METS minutes per week [SMD −0.164 (95% CI −0.303 to −0.025), P = .02, I2 = 77%], ↓ physical activity duration [SMD = −0.068 (95% CI = −0.097 to −0.039), P < .01, I2 = 0%], ↑ sedentary time [SMD = 0.09 (95% CI 0.006–0.180), P = .04, I2 = 84%]
Wunsch et al., 2022 [84]	57 studies (17 accelerometers/pedometers, 40 questionnaires)	119 094 participants	↓ physical activity [z = −0.18 (95% CI −0.30 to −0.06), P < .001]
Stockwell et al., 2021 [83]	66 studies (5 studies accelerometer/pedometer, 61 questionnaires)	86 981 participants (healthy adults and children, patients with medical conditions)	↓ in physical activity and ↑ in sedentary behaviours during lockdown
Oliveira et al., 2022 [143]	25 studies (4 studies accelerometer/pedometer, 21 questionnaires)	15 964 elderly participants	↓ in physical activity caused by ↑ in sitting time, ↓ in METs, ↓ in the number of steps, ↓ in exercise frequency and duration

METs, metabolic equivalent tasks; SMD, standardized mean difference.