ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Step cadence to guide physical activity intensity in coronary heart disease.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Regular physical activity at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity is associated with a lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality in individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD). Walking is a common form of physical activity; however, there is no evidence-based recommendation for the optimal step cadence (steps per minute) to achieve these intensity levels among individuals with coronary heart disease. Thus, this study aimed to establish the agreement between manually counted step cadence and step cadence assessed by waist- and wrist-worn accelerometers during treadmill walking among individuals with CHD. Next, the study aimed to establish the association between manually counted and accelerometer-assessed step cadence with cardiorespiratory intensity, followed by the development and validation of cadence thresholds for moderate- and vigorous-intensity levels. Methods: Participants ( Results: Accelerometers underestimated the aggregated cadence compared with manual assessments, with a mean difference of -16 and -31 steps/min for waist- and wrist-worn accelerometers, respectively, with a higher level of agreement at higher speeds. Manually assessed cadence thresholds for moderate intensity were 99 (relative) and 92 (absolute) steps/min compared with 61 and 45 steps/min from waist-worn accelerometers. For vigorous intensity, manual and accelerometer thresholds were similar: 116 vs. 112 (relative) and 126 vs. 135 (absolute) steps/min. Both methods effectively identified valid thresholds for moderate and vigorous cardiorespiratory intensity. Conclusion: Step cadence is a valid indicator of intensity in CHD populations, with manual and accelerometer methods showing comparable accuracy, despite accelerometer underestimation at lower speeds. Clinical Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12623000605695 (02062023).
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.