Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

7000 Steps a Day Keeps the Doctor Away (Mostly): A Big Review Says So

This large systematic review found that even a modest increase in daily steps is associated with reduced risk of various health problems including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular issues, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and dementia. 7,000 steps/day was linked to meaningful improvements, with further gains diminishing beyond that level for most outcomes. There were some limitations, including a smaller number of studies for some of the less-common health problems.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

None identified

Identified Weaknesses

Small number of studies for some outcomes

The certainty of evidence for cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer incidence remains low due to the small number of available studies. Further research with a larger sample size is needed to enhance certainty.

Limited generalizability due to primarily high-income samples

Most of the data came from high-income countries. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings to other populations, such as those in low-income and middle-income countries, might be limited.

Risk of residual confounding

Although many studies accounted for confounding factors, residual confounding might still exist due to unmeasured or unknown confounders, and no causal framework was applied. The observed associations might be partially explained by unmeasured factors related to health status.

Single timepoint measures

The step counts were generally measured at a single timepoint over a few days. This measure might not reflect people's typical stepping patterns or changes in their stepping behavior over time.

Variability in step-counting measures

The step-counting devices and methods used varied across studies. While the subgroup analyses addressed some of these variations, different devices and wear locations could still influence results, adding to overall uncertainty.

Rating Explanation

This is a strong systematic review with a large sample size and several strengths, including its comprehensiveness, subgroup analyses, and exploration of dose-response relationships. It synthesizes evidence across a wider range of health outcomes compared to prior reviews. However, limitations include the small number of studies for some outcomes, limited generalizability to certain demographics and countries, the risk of residual confounding, single time-point measures, and variability in step-counting measures. The limitations warrant a rating of 4 rather than 5.

Good to know

This is our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →