Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Despite the rapid increase in evidence from the past decade on daily steps and health-related outcomes, existing systematic reviews primarily focused on few outcomes, such as all-cause mortality. This study synthesised the prospective dose-response relationship between daily steps and health outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, cognitive outcomes, mental health outcomes, physical function, and falls. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and EBSCO CINAHL for literature published between Jan 1, 2014, and Feb 14, 2025, supplemented by other search strategies. Eligible prospective studies examined the relationship between device-measured daily steps and health outcomes among adults without restrictions on language or publication type. Pairs of reviewers (BN, KO, ML, and TN) independently did the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the 9-point Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Hazard ratios (HRs) from individual studies were synthesised using random-effects dose-response meta-analysis where possible. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024529706). Findings 57 studies from 35 cohorts were included in the systematic review and 31 studies from 24 cohorts were included in meta-analyses. For all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, dementia, and falls, an inverse non-linear dose-response association was found, with inflection points at around 5000–7000 steps per day. An inverse linear association was found for cardiovascular disease mortality, cancer incidence, cancer mortality, type 2 diabetes incidence, and depressive symptoms. Based on our meta-analyses, compared with 2000 steps per day, 7000 steps per day was associated with a 47% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0·53 [95% CI 0·46–0·60]; I 2 =36·3; 14 studies), a 25% lower risk of cardiovascular disease incidence (HR 0·75 [0·67–0·85]; I 2 =38·3%; six studies), a 47% lower risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (HR 0·53 [0·37–0·77]; I 2 =78·2%; three studies), a non-significant 6% lower risk of cancer incidence (HR 0·94 [0·87–1·01]; I 2 =73·7%; two studies), a 37% lower risk of cancer mortality (HR 0·63 [0·55–0·72]; I 2 =64·5%; three studies), a 14% lower risk of type 2 diabetes (HR 0·86 [0·74–0·99]; I 2 =48·5%; four studies), a 38% lower risk of dementia (HR 0·62 [0·53–0·73]; I 2 =0%; two studies), a 22% lower risk of depressive symptoms (HR 0·78 [0·73–0·83]; I 2 =36·2%; three studies), and a 28% lower risk of falls (HR 0·72 [0·65–0·81]; I 2 =47·5%; four studies). Studies on physical function (not based on meta-analysis) reported similar inverse associations. The evidence certainty was moderate for all outcomes except for cardiovascular disease mortality (low), cancer incidence (low), physical function (low), and falls (very low). Interpretation Although 10 000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active, 7000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some. The findings of the study should be interpreted in light of limitations, such as the small number of studies available for most outcomes, a lack of age-specific analysis and biases at the individual study level, including residual confounding. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council, New South Wales Health, and Ian Potter Foundation.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,051 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».