Cancers are a major contributor to disease burden worldwide, and projections forecast that global cancer burden will continue to grow for at least the next 2 decades.^1-4 The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognize the need for reducing cancer burden as part of target 3.4, stating “By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases [NCDs] through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.”⁵ Most countries will need to accelerate their efforts to reduce NCD burden, including cancer, to meet this SDG target.^6,7 Increasing the pace of progress will be particularly critical given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to delays and disruptions in cancer screenings, diagnosis, and treatment around the world.^8-12

Prolonged total sitting time and domain-specific sedentary behaviors, particularly sitting watching television, have been associated with increased risk of obesity,¹ cardiovascular disease,² cancer,³ diabetes,⁴ and overall mortality.⁵ Physical activity eliminates the excess risk associated with prolonged sitting only among highly active individuals (ie, 10-11 h/wk of brisk walking),⁶ leaving the majority of the US population who are inactive or who merely participate in the recommended amount of physical activity⁷ at higher risk of mortality associated with sitting. Indeed, the second edition of the seminal 10-year update of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans⁸ not only acknowledged the health risks associated with sedentary behaviors but also, for the first time suggested that most people would benefit from both increasing moderate to vigorous physical activity and reducing time spent sitting.⁹

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) and low quality of life (QoL) are two common conditions. Some recent literature proposed that these two entities can be associated. However, no attempt was made to collate this literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing data to estimate the strength of the association between UI and QoL.Methods: An electronic search of major databases up to 18th April 2020 was carried out. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional and case–control studies comparing mean values in QoL between patients with UI and controls was performed, reporting random-effects standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect size. Heterogeneity was assessed with theI².Results: Out of 8279 articles initially screened, 23 were finally included for a total of 24,983 participants, mainly women. The mean age was ≥ 50 years in 12/23 studies. UI was significantly associated with poor QoL as assessed by the short-form 36 (SF-36) total score (n = 6 studies; UI: 473 vs. 2971 controls; SMD = − 0.89; 95% CI − 1.3 to − 0.42;I² = 93.5) and by the sub-scales of SF-36 and 5/8 of the domains included in the SF-36. Similar results were found using other QoL tools. The risk of bias of the studies included was generally high.Conclusions: UI is associated with a poor QoL, with a strong level of certainty. This work, however, mainly based on cross-sectional and case–control studies, highlights the necessity of future longitudinal studies for better understanding the importance of UI on QoL.

The aim of the present study was to assess both the credibility and strength of evidence arising from systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies on handgrip strength and health outcomes. An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies was conducted. We assessed meta-analyses of observational studies based on random-effect summary effect sizes and their p values, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, small-study effects, and excess significance. We graded the evidence from convincing (Class I) to weak (Class IV). From 504 articles returned in a search of the literature, 8 systematic reviews were included in our review, with a total of 11 outcomes. Overall, nine of the 11 of the outcomes reported nominally significant summary results (p < 0.05), with 4 associations surviving the application of the more stringent p value (p < 10-6). No outcome presented convincing evidence. Three associations showed Class II evidence (i.e., highly suggestive): (1) higher handgrip values at baseline were associated with a minor reduction in mortality risk in the general population (n = 34 studies; sample size = 1,855,817; relative risk = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.67-0.78), (2) cardiovascular death risk in mixed populations (n = 15 studies; relative risk = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.78-0.91), and (3) incidence of disability (n = 7 studies; relative risk = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.66-0.87). The present results show that handgrip strength is a useful indicator for general health status and specifically for early all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as disability. To further inform intervention strategies, future research is now required to fully understand mechanisms linking handgrip strength scores to these health outcomes.