Association between physical activity and risk of anxiety: a dose-response meta-analysis of 11 international cohorts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Anxiety disorders are the world's most common mental disorders and the risk of anxiety may be reduced by physical activity. However, the dose-response relationship between physical activity and the risk of anxiety remains uncertain. Methods: Following Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases were searched for all prospective cohort studies on physical activity and the risk of anxiety up to 7 February 2025, with no language restrictions. We included prospective cohort studies reporting physical activity at three or more exposure levels and risk estimates for anxiety. Data extraction and article quality assessments were completed independently by two extractors. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and nonlinear dose-response meta-analyses were performed using restricted cubic spline models. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the risk of bias for the included articles. Egger's test and Begg's test were used to evaluate the publication bias. Findings: = 0.9%; P = 0.32) found an inversed-line relationship between physical activity and anxiety risk. And physical activity levels less than 14.5 MET-h/week were not statistically significant in reducing anxiety risk [CI of relative risks (RR) included 1.00]. The NOS assessment showed low risk of bias for all 11 studies. Egger's test and Begg's test found no publication bias in the included studies (P = 0.73). Interpretation: Our research confirmed a dose-response relationship between physical activity and anxiety risk, and increasing physical activity within the range recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) (10-20 MET-h/week) can significantly reduce anxiety risk. Subgroup analysis showed that this protective effect was most significant during the 5-year follow-up period, with a maximum anxiety risk reduction of 49%. Exceeding the recommended dose, there may be additional smaller benefits between doses 20-30 MET-h/week, and exceeding 50 MET-h/week may become a risk factor. In addition, the protective effect decreases with time and age, and the recommended dose by WHO (10-14.5 MET-h/week) has no statistically significant protection for the elderly, nor has the maximum beneficial dose been found, indicating the need for more relevant research on the elderly in the future. Funding: The National Traditional Chinese Medicine innovation team and talent support projects fund this study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».