4.6 Review

Daily Step Count and All-Cause Mortality: A Dose-Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

期刊

SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 89-99

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01536-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a linear inverse association between step count and all-cause mortality risk, especially within the range of 2700 to 17,000 steps per day. The risk decreased significantly as the number of steps per day increased, with estimates suggesting a strong dose-response relationship.
Background Uncertainty remains about the optimum step count per day for health promotion. Objective We aimed to investigate the association between step count per day and all-cause mortality risk. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science were searched to January 2021 to find prospective cohort studies of the association between device-based step count per day and all-cause mortality risk in the general population. Two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Study-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results Seven prospective cohort studies with 175,370 person-years and 2310 cases of all-cause mortality were included. The HR for each 1000 steps per day was 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93; I-2 = 79%, n = 7) in the overall analysis, 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.97; I-2 = 59%, n = 3) in adults older than 70 years, and 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.95; I-2 = 37%, n = 2) in studies controlled for step intensity. Dose-response meta-analysis indicated a strong inverse association, wherein the risk decreased linearly from 2700 to17,000 steps per day. The HR for 10,000 steps per day was 0.44 (95% CI 0.31-0.63). The certainty of evidence was rated strong due to upgrades for large effect size and dose-response gradient. Conclusions Even a modest increase in steps per day may be associated with a lower risk of death. These results can be used to develop simple, efficient and easy-to-understand public health messages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据