Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".