Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36581809›Full record

ReviewEuropean review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity2022

The value of walking: a systematic review on mobility and healthcare costs.

Martin Wohlrab, Jochen Klenk, Laura Delgado-Ortiz, Michael Chambers, Lynn Rochester, Matthias Zuchowski, Matthias Schwab, Clemens Becker, Simon U Jaeger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. High-Intensity Gait Training for Patients After Stroke: A Feasibility Study.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Martin WohlrabDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Auerbachstrasse 112, 70376, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jochen KlenkRobert-Bosch Gesellschaft Für Medizinische Forschung, Stuttgart, Germany.
Laura Delgado-OrtizISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain.
Michael ChambersMC Healthcare Evaluation, London, UK.
Lynn RochesterTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle Unviersity, Newcastle, UK.
Matthias ZuchowskiRobert-Bosch-Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Matthias SchwabDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Auerbachstrasse 112, 70376, Stuttgart, Germany. matthias.schwab@ikp-stuttgart.de.
Clemens BeckerRobert-Bosch Gesellschaft Für Medizinische Forschung, Stuttgart, Germany.
Simon U JaegerDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Auerbachstrasse 112, 70376, Stuttgart, Germany. simon.jaeger@ikp-stuttgart.de.

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 820820
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability to walk is an important indicator of general health and mobility deficits have wide-ranging economic implications. We undertook a systematic review to elucidate the impact of walking parameters on health care costs. 

methodsPublications reporting on associations between health care costs and walking parameters were identified by a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and manual reference screening, following the PRISMA reporting guidelines. First, titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers followed by a review of the full articles if they met the inclusion criteria. Costs were converted to US-Dollars with inflation adjustment for 2021. A narrative synthesis was performed. 

resultsTen studies conducted between 2001 and 2021 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Assessment of walking ability was carried out via patient reported outcomes, performance tests, or using wearable digital devices. Walking more than one hour per day, a faster walking speed and the ability to walk without impairments are associated with significant lower health care costs. A higher number of steps per day is associated with significant lower costs in two simulation studies, while in the study using a digital device, taking more than 10,000 steps per day is not significantly associated with lower direct costs. The heterogeneity of mobility assessments and of economic analyses both precluded a quantitative synthesis.

conclusionCross-sectional and observational studies from this systematic review suggest a significant association of better walking performance with lower health care costs. Future health economic research and health technology assessments should use quantifiable mobility outcomes when evaluating new drugs or non-pharmacological interventions.

Indexed as

Health care costsMobilitySystematic reviewWalking

Identifiers

PMID36581809
PMCPMC9798720

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.