Trial reportPLoS medicine2019
Effect of pedometer-based walking interventions on long-term health outcomes: Prospective 4-year follow-up of two randomised controlled trials using routine primary care data.
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Wearable Activity Tracker-Based Interventions for Physical Activity, Body Composition, and Physical Function Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Do physical activity interventions combining self-monitoring with other components provide an additional benefit compared with self-monitoring alone? A systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of sports medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Daily Step Count and All-Cause Mortality: A Dose-Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Pooled it
- The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of exercise intervention on fall-related fractures in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC geriatrics · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of the prospective association of daily step counts with risk of mortality, cardiovascular disease, and dysglycemia.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- Predictors of Weight Loss Among Adults With Mental Illness: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Trial
- Effects of museum-based art activities on older community dwellers' physical activity: the A-health randomized controlled trial results.European geriatric medicine · 2023Trial
- Exploring sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in the primary healthcare setting: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the NHS active 10 walking app intervention through time-series analysis in 201,688 individuals.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Paving the way for improved action: how nuclear techniques can advance the assessment of malnutrition.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Wearable Technology in Cardiology: Advancements, Applications, and Future Prospects.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Lifestyle interventions for cardiometabolic health.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Cadence as a Behavioral Target in Physical Activity Interventions: A Narrative Review.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2024Review
- Dose-response associations, physical activity intensity and mortality risk: A narrative review.Journal of sport and health science · 2024Review
- Open-Source, Step-Counting Algorithm for Smartphone Data Collected in Clinical and Nonclinical Settings: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData are lacking from physical activity (PA) trials with long-term follow-up of both objectively measured PA levels and robust health outcomes. Two primary care 12-week pedometer-based walking interventions in adults and older adults (PACE-UP and PACE-Lift) found sustained objectively measured PA increases at 3 and 4 years, respectively. We aimed to evaluate trial intervention effects on long-term health outcomes relevant to walking interventions, using routine primary care data. METHODS AND
findingsRandomisation was from October 2012 to November 2013 for PACE-UP participants from seven general (family) practices and October 2011 to October 2012 for PACE-Lift participants from three practices. We downloaded primary care data, masked to intervention or control status, for 1,001 PACE-UP participants aged 45-75 years, 36% (361) male, and 296 PACE-Lift participants, aged 60-75 years, 46% (138) male, who gave written informed consent, for 4-year periods following randomisation. The following new events were counted for all participants, including those with preexisting diseases (apart from diabetes, for which existing cases were excluded): nonfatal cardiovascular, total cardiovascular (including fatal), incident diabetes, depression, fractures, and falls. Intervention effects on time to first event post-randomisation were modelled using Cox regression for all outcomes, except for falls, which used negative binomial regression to allow for multiple events, adjusting for age, sex, and study. Absolute risk reductions (ARRs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were estimated. Data were downloaded for 1,297 (98%) of 1,321 trial participants. Event rates were low (<20 per group) for outcomes, apart from fractures and falls. Cox hazard ratios for time to first event post-randomisation for interventions versus controls were nonfatal cardiovascular 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.77, p = 0.02), total cardiovascular 0.34 (95% CI 0.12-0.91, p = 0.03), diabetes 0.75 (95% CI 0.42-1.36, p = 0.34), depression 0.98 (95% CI 0.46-2.07, p = 0.96), and fractures 0.56 (95% CI 0.35-0.90, p = 0.02). Negative binomial incident rate ratio for falls was 1.07 (95% CI 0.78-1.46, p = 0.67). ARR and NNT for cardiovascular events were nonfatal 1.7% (95% CI 0.5%-2.1%), NNT = 59 (95% CI 48-194); total 1.6% (95% CI 0.2%-2.2%), NNT = 61 (95% CI 46-472); and for fractures 3.6% (95% CI 0.8%-5.4%), NNT = 28 (95% CI 19-125). Main limitations were that event rates were low and only events recorded in primary care records were counted; however, any underrecording would not have differed by intervention status and so should not have led to bias.
conclusionsRoutine primary care data used to assess long-term trial outcomes demonstrated significantly fewer new cardiovascular events and fractures in intervention participants at 4 years. No statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups were demonstrated for other events. Short-term primary care pedometer-based walking interventions can produce long-term health benefits and should be more widely used to help address the public health inactivity challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: PACE-UP isrctn.com ISRCTN98538934; PACE-Lift isrctn.com ISRCTN42122561.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.