30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The relationship between step count and all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events: A dose–response meta-analysis

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p id="d1380640e220"> <div class="list"> <a class="named-anchor" id="celist0001"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <ul class="so-custom-list" style="list-style-type: none"> <li id="celistitem0001"> <div class="so-custom-list-label so-ol">•</div> <div class="so-custom-list-content so-ol"> <p id="para0002">Higher step count is inversely associated with the risk of premature death and cardiovascular events. </p> </div> </li> <li id="celistitem0002"> <div class="so-custom-list-label so-ol">•</div> <div class="so-custom-list-content so-ol"> <p id="para0003">As measured by accelerometers, 8959 steps/day (Q3) had a 40.36% lower risk of all-cause mortality than 4183 steps/day (Q1). </p> </div> </li> <li id="celistitem0003"> <div class="so-custom-list-label so-ol">•</div> <div class="so-custom-list-content so-ol"> <p id="para0004">As measured by accelerometers, 9500 steps/day (Q3) had a 35.05% lower risk of cardiovascular events than 3500 steps/day(Q1). </p> </div> </li> <li id="celistitem0004"> <div class="so-custom-list-label so-ol">•</div> <div class="so-custom-list-content so-ol"> <p id="para0005">These associations were in nonlinear dose–response patterns.</p> </div> </li> </ul> </div> </p><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d1380640e243"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1380640e244">Background</h5> <p id="d1380640e246">A goal of 10,000 steps per day is widely advocated, but there is little evidence to support that goal. Our purpose was to examine the dose–response relationships between step count and all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease risk. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d1380640e248"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1380640e249">Methods</h5> <p id="d1380640e251">Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, OVID, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies published before July 9, 2021, that evaluated the association between daily steps and at least 1 outcome. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d1380640e253"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1380640e254">Results</h5> <p id="d1380640e256">Sixteen publications (12 related to all-cause mortality, 5 related to cardiovascular disease; and 1 article contained 2 outcomes: both all-cause death and cardiovascular events) were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There was evidence of a nonlinear dose–response relationship between step count and risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular disease ( <i>p</i> = 0.002 and <i>p</i> = 0.014 for nonlinearity, respectively). When we restricted the analyses to accelerometer-based studies, the third quartile had a 40.36% lower risk of all-cause mortality and a 35.05% lower risk of cardiovascular event than the first quartile (all-cause mortality: Q1 = 4183 steps/day, Q3 = 8959 steps/day; cardiovascular event: Q1 = 3500 steps/day, Q3 = 9500 steps/day; respectively). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d1380640e264"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1380640e265">Conclusion</h5> <p id="d1380640e267">Our meta-analysis suggests inverse associations between higher step count and risk of premature death and cardiovascular events in middle-aged and older adults, with nonlinear dose–response patterns. </p> </div><p id="d1380640e272"> <div class="fig panel" id="fig0005b"> <a class="named-anchor" id="fig0005b"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <div class="figure-container so-text-align-c"> <img alt="" class="figure" src="/document_file/56cfcc36-d50c-42af-81a5-5ad8da7f8441/PubMedCentral/image/ga1"/> </div> <div class="panel-content"/> </div> </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for Reporting

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Sport and Health Science
                Journal of Sport and Health Science
                Elsevier BV
                20952546
                September 2021
                September 2021
                Article
                10.1016/j.jshs.2021.09.004
                8d9e4046-04b2-4f89-802d-2a0e3d7a4b14
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,434

                Cited by21

                Most referenced authors1,366