approaching significanceP = 0.052
Egger’s test was approaching significance in the two-level model (t(30) = 2.03, P = 0.052), whereas the multilevel Egger’s test was non-significant (t(30) = 1.14, P = 0.26; Figure S18).
Egger’s test was approaching significance in the two-level model (t(30) = 2.03, P = 0.052), whereas the multilevel Egger’s test was non-significant (t(30) = 1.14, P = 0.26; Figure S18).
The three-level random-effects model showed that the effect of sedentary breaks on MAP did not reach statistical significance compared with continuous sitting (MD = − 0.66 mm Hg [95% CI, − 1.53, 0.21]; 95% PI [− 1.53, 0.21]; P = 0.13).
Publication Bias: The funnel plot showed a slight trend of asymmetry (Figure S18), suggesting potential small-study effects, but the overall extent was limited.