21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Highlights

          • Higher step count is inversely associated with the risk of premature death and cardiovascular events.

          • As measured by accelerometers, 8959 steps/day (Q3) had a 40.36% lower risk of all-cause mortality than 4183 steps/day (Q1).

          • As measured by accelerometers, 9500 steps/day (Q3) had a 35.05% lower risk of cardiovascular events than 3500 steps/day(Q1).

          • These associations were in nonlinear dose–response patterns.

          Abstract

          Background

          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.

          Methods

          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.

          Results

          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 ( p = 0.002 and p = 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).

          Conclusion

          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.

          Graphical abstract

          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

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Sport Health Sci
                J Sport Health Sci
                Journal of Sport and Health Science
                Shanghai University of Sport
                2095-2546
                2213-2961
                20 September 2021
                December 2021
                20 September 2021
                : 10
                : 6
                : 620-628
                Affiliations
                [a ]Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China
                [b ]Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. chaoseu@ 123456163.com
                Article
                S2095-2546(21)00101-0
                10.1016/j.jshs.2021.09.004
                8724621
                34547483
                8d9e4046-04b2-4f89-802d-2a0e3d7a4b14
                © 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 1 April 2021
                : 1 June 2021
                : 21 July 2021
                Categories
                Review

                all-cause death,cardiovascular disease,daily steps,dose-response,healthy lifestyle,primary prevention

                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 content92

                Cited by21

                Most referenced authors1,362