Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31237875›Full record

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.

Tess Harris, Elizabeth S Limb, Fay Hosking, Iain Carey, Steve DeWilde, Cheryl Furness, Charlotte Wahlich, Shaleen Ahmad, Sally Kerry, Peter Whincup and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8671-1553
Elizabeth S LimbPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0830-7376
Fay HoskingPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.
Iain CareyPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1099-8460
Steve DeWildePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.
Cheryl FurnessPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8335-8005
Charlotte WahlichPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3450-5210
Shaleen AhmadPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.
Sally KerryPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7181-9107
Peter WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.
Christina VictorGerontology and Health Services Research Unit, Brunel University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4213-3974
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0995-7955
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2806-3997
Ulf EkelundDepartment of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2115-9267
Julia Fox-RushbyDepartment of Population Science, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Judith IbisonInstitute of Medical and Biomedical Education, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9723-5759

Funding

Department of Health 10/32/02Department of Health PB-PG-0909-20055
6 · The paper itself

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

Data AnalysisActigraphyAgedCardiovascular DiseasesExerciseFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFractures, BoneHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityPrimary Health CareProspective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31237875
PMCPMC6592516

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.