Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32371512›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Effectiveness of adult community-based physical activity interventions with objective physical activity measurements and long-term follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Charlotte Wahlich, Umar A R Chaudhry, Rebecca Fortescue, Derek G Cook, Shashivadan Hirani, Rachel Knightly, Tess Harris

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Resistance training in older adults: are the gains worth the strain?American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Change in Objectively Measured Activity Levels Resulting from the EMPOWER Study Lifestyle Intervention.Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte WahlichPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Umar A R ChaudhryPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Rebecca FortescuePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Shashivadan HiraniSchool of Health Sciences, City University, London, UK.
Rachel KnightlyPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK tharris@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8671-1553
St George's, University of London · GBCity, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity (PA) interventions with objective PA outcomes in adults and to evaluate whether intervention effects were sustained beyond 12 months.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts)) were searched from January 2000 until December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs reporting objective PA outcomes beyond 12 months with community-based participants aged ≥18 years were included; those where controls received active interventions, including advice to increase PA levels, were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed extraction of aggregate data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses used random-effects models at different follow-up points. Primary outcomes were daily steps and weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA).

resultsOf 33 282 records identified, nine studies (at generally low risk of bias) were included, five in meta-analyses with 12 months to 4 year follow-up. We observed 12 month increases for intervention vs control participants in steps/day (mean difference (MD)=554 (95% CIs: 384 to 724) p<0.0001, I

conclusionsThere are few PA interventions with objective follow-up beyond 12 months, more studies are needed. However, this review provided evidence of PA intervention effects beyond 12 months and sustained up to 4 years for both steps/day and MVPA. These findings have important implications for potential long-term health benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017075753.

Indexed as

ExerciseIndependent LivingAdultFollow-Up StudiesHumansPatient ComplianceRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicepidemiologypublic healthsports medicine

Identifiers

PMID32371512
PMCPMC7228538
OpenAlexW3021459070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.