Objectives There has been no research on sedentary behaviour in the occupational domain that occupies a large portion of the daily life.
Methods We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the association between sedentary work and colorectal cancer. We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to 12 August 2020 for peer-reviewed journal articles that assessed the association between sedentary work and colon or rectal cancer. Pooled estimates of ORs were obtained using random effects models. Statistical tests for publication bias, heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were applied.
Results Of the 5 381 studies initially identified, 23 studies with 64 reports were eligible for inclusion. Sedentary work significantly increased the risk of colon cancer (pooled OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.31, p value ≤0.0001) and rectal cancer (pooled OR=1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16, p value=0.0395). The adjustment for leisure time physical activity attenuated the association and made the risk estimates non-significant for sedentary behaviour, but the association was independent of sex, control of body mass index and assessment of sedentary behaviour.
Conclusions We found evidence of association between sedentary work and the risk of colon or rectal cancer. Limiting excessive sedentary work could be an important means of preventing colon and rectal cancer.
- occupational health
- public health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
JL and JL contributed equally.
Contributors JYL and JL contributed equally to the study. H-RK and M-YK designed the study. JYL and M-YK designed the search strategy. JYL, JL and M-YK conducted the searches, retrieved articles and screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. JYL and JL did statistical analysis. JYL and M-YK wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and JYL, D-wL, H-RK and JA contributed writing to subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the study findings and read and approved the final version before submission.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.