Coralie English1, Ishanka Weerasekara2, Anjelica Carlos3, Sebastien Chastin4, Gary Crowfoot5, Claire Fitzsimons6, Anne Forster7, Elizabeth Holliday8, Heidi Janssen9, Paul Mackie5, Gillian Mead10, David Dunstan11. 1. School of Health Sciences and Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia. Electronic address: coralie.english@newcastle.edu.au. 2. School of Health Sciences and Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. 3. School of Health Sciences and Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; Hunter Stroke Service, Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, Australia. 4. Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; School of Health and Life Science, Institute of Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. 5. School of Health Sciences and Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation, Florey Institute of Neuroscience, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, Institute of Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 7. Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK. 8. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 9. School of Health Sciences and Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; Hunter Stroke Service, Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, Australia; Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation, Florey Institute of Neuroscience, Melbourne, Australia. 10. Geriatric Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 11. Physical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sedentary behaviour research is a relatively new field, much of which has emerged since the widespread acceptance of clinical trial registration. The aim of this study was to investigate the trial registration and related issues in studies investigating the effect of frequent activity interruptions to prolonged sitting-time. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a scoping review including systematic searches of databases and trial registries. We included experimental studies investigating the effects of frequent activity interruptions to prolonged sitting-time. RESULTS: We identified 32 trials published in 45 papers. Only 16 (50%) trials were registered, with all 16 trials being completed and published. Of the unregistered trials, we identified three (19%) for which similarities in the sample size and participant demographics across papers was suggestive of duplicate publication. Identification of potential duplicate publications was difficult for the remaining 13 (81%). Results from 53 (76%) of the 70 registered outcomes were published, but 11 (69%) registered trials reported results from additional outcomes not prospectively registered. A total of 46 different outcomes (out of 53 reported outcome measures, similar measures were collated) were reported across all trials, 31 (67%) of which were collected in ≤2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: We found direct evidence of trial registration issues in experimental trials of breaking up sitting-time. The lack of prospective registration of all trials, and the large number of outcomes measured per trial are key considerations for future research in this field. These issues are unlikely to be confined to the field of sedentary behaviour research.
OBJECTIVES: Sedentary behaviour research is a relatively new field, much of which has emerged since the widespread acceptance of clinical trial registration. The aim of this study was to investigate the trial registration and related issues in studies investigating the effect of frequent activity interruptions to prolonged sitting-time. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a scoping review including systematic searches of databases and trial registries. We included experimental studies investigating the effects of frequent activity interruptions to prolonged sitting-time. RESULTS: We identified 32 trials published in 45 papers. Only 16 (50%) trials were registered, with all 16 trials being completed and published. Of the unregistered trials, we identified three (19%) for which similarities in the sample size and participant demographics across papers was suggestive of duplicate publication. Identification of potential duplicate publications was difficult for the remaining 13 (81%). Results from 53 (76%) of the 70 registered outcomes were published, but 11 (69%) registered trials reported results from additional outcomes not prospectively registered. A total of 46 different outcomes (out of 53 reported outcome measures, similar measures were collated) were reported across all trials, 31 (67%) of which were collected in ≤2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: We found direct evidence of trial registration issues in experimental trials of breaking up sitting-time. The lack of prospective registration of all trials, and the large number of outcomes measured per trial are key considerations for future research in this field. These issues are unlikely to be confined to the field of sedentary behaviour research.
Authors: Celine Latouche; Jeremy B M Jowett; Andrew L Carey; David A Bertovic; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan; Bronwyn A Kingwell Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2012-12-27
Authors: Matthew McCarthy; Charlotte L Edwardson; Melanie J Davies; Joseph Henson; Alex Rowlands; James A King; Danielle H Bodicoat; Kamlesh Khunti; Thomas Yates Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Paddy C Dempsey; Jennifer M Blankenship; Robyn N Larsen; Julian W Sacre; Parneet Sethi; Nora E Straznicky; Neale D Cohen; Ester Cerin; Gavin W Lambert; Neville Owen; Bronwyn A Kingwell; David W Dunstan Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Paul Mackie; Ishanka Weerasekara; Gary Crowfoot; Heidi Janssen; Elizabeth Holliday; David Dunstan; Coralie English Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Emerald G Heiland; Karin Kjellenberg; Olga Tarassova; Maria Fernström; Gisela Nyberg; Maria M Ekblom; Björg Helgadottir; Örjan Ekblom Journal: Trials Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 2.279