Table 6.

Summary of findings table for comparison 1.2: Active transport interventions

Patient or population: Children and adults, both living in the community as well as those travelling to and from school and work, respectively Setting: Communities and neighbourhoods in HICs Intervention: Creating or upgrading sidewalks, crosswalks, walking, cycling and running paths, light rail routes (e.g. street cars, trams), improvement of the near-school cycling and walking environment, or a motorway Comparison: no new intervention
Outcomes	№ of studies	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Impact
Physical activity assessed with: proportion/time cycling, biking, walking, MVPA, transit related active trips follow-up: 1 year to 10 years	16 CBA studies, 1 ITS	⊕  ⊝  ⊝  ⊝  VERY LOW a, b	Seven studies reported a clear effect favouring the intervention, six studies reported an unclear effect potentially favouring the intervention, three studies reported an unclear effect potentially favouring the control, and one study reported a clear effect favouring the control
Body weight assessed with: BMI follow up: 12 months	2 CBA studies	⊕  ⊝  ⊝  ⊝  VERY LOWa	One study observed a clear effect favouring the intervention and one study observed an unclear effect potentially favouring the control
Blood pressure	0 studies	-	Not reported
CVD morbidity	0 studies	-	Not reported
Diabetes morbidity	0 studies	-	Not reported
CVD mortality	0 studies	-	Not reported
Diabetes mortality	0 studies	-	Not reported

CI Confidence interval, HICs high-income countries, RR Risk ratio, OR Odds ratio, MVPA moderate to vigorous physical activity, CBA controlled before-after

Explanation

^aDowngraded by 1 for risk of bias: high risk across several domains in multiple studies; there is high potential for direction of effect to change

^bDowngraded by 1 for imprecision: very wide confidence intervals in most studies