ArticleBMC research notes2022
Objectively-measured step cadence and walking patterns in a rural African setting: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMC research notes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital mobility assessment using wearable devices in people with Parkinson's disease: a feasibility and implementation study in Ghana (TraPCAf) compared with a UK cohort.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity Data Sets (Global Physical Activity Data Set Catalogue) That Include Markers of Cardiometabolic Health: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate free-living, accelerometry-derived step cadence and walking strategy parameters in 263 adult women (19-56 years) within a rural African setting. Participants were categorised into weight groups: Under-to-Normal Weight (UW/NW: < 25 kg/m
resultsAverage step volume was 13,568 steps/day, and > 85% of participants were classified as active-to-highly-active. Overall, ≈ 45% of daily steps was accumulated in the low-to-moderate intensity range. Peak cadence indices were higher in the UW/NW group (p ≤ 0.0112). For both groups, 75% of steps were accumulated in bouts > 15 min, and 95% of bouts were accumulated at 1-39 steps/min. The UW/NW group employed a more varied step cadence, and higher cadences contributed more to step accumulation than the OW/OB group (p ≤ 0.05). There were no significant group differences in bout length strategy parameters (p ≥ 0.0861). Despite no difference between the weight groups in step volume, there were differences in some step cadence indices which reflect higher step intensities, and in cadence strategies chosen to accumulate steps.
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.