Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26334900›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Step Counter Use and Sedentary Time in Adults: A Meta-Analysis.

Shanhu Qiu, Xue Cai, Changping Ju, Zilin Sun, Han Yin, Martina Zügel, Stephanie Otto, Jürgen M Steinacker, Uwe Schumann

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pedometer intervention and weight loss in overweight and obese adults with Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Physical activity monitors to enhance amount of physical activity in older adults - a systematic review and meta-analysis.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Shanhu QiuFrom the Department of Endocrinology (SQ, XC, CJ, ZS, HY), Zhongda Hospital, Institute of Diabetes, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, P.R. China; and Department of Internal Medicine II (HY, MZ, SO, JMS, US), Division of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Xue Cai
Changping Ju
Zilin Sun
Han Yin
Martina Zügel
Stephanie Otto
Jürgen M Steinacker
Uwe Schumann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although step counters are increasingly being used in walking programmes to promote sedentary behavior changes in adults, their effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess the effectiveness of step counter use in reducing sedentary time among adults.English-language RCTs from 3 databases were searched up to December 2014. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of step counter use in adult populations and reported outcomes in sedentary time. Summary estimates (Cohen d with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and random-effects meta-regression analyses based on the characteristics of participants or interventions were conducted to explore their associations with sedentary time changes.Fifteen RCTs with a total sample size of 3262 adults were included. Step counter use was associated with a small but significant overall effect in reducing sedentary time (d = -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07), equating to a reduction in sedentary time of ~23 min/d compared with controls. Subgroup analyses showed that step counter use with a step goal was associated with significantly reduced sedentary time (d =- 0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11), whereas without, it had only a trend. A greater reduction in sedentary time was observed among step counter users employing objective methods than those employing subjective methods for measurement (P = 0.03). Effects of covariates on sedentary time changes were generally unclear.Step counter use is associated with reduced sedentary time among adults. Future studies are required to specify the step goal use and to employ objective as well as subjective methods for measuring both total and domain-specific sedentary time.

Indexed as

Exercise TestSedentary BehaviorAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegression AnalysisTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26334900
PMCPMC4616497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.