↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and meta-analysis of reduction in all-cause mortality from walking and cycling and shape of dose response relationship

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 1,396)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
24 news outlets
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
349 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic review and meta-analysis of reduction in all-cause mortality from walking and cycling and shape of dose response relationship
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12966-014-0132-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Kelly, Sonja Kahlmeier, Thomas Götschi, Nicola Orsini, Justin Richards, Nia Roberts, Peter Scarborough, Charlie Foster

Abstract

Background and objectiveWalking and cycling have shown beneficial effects on population risk of all-cause mortality (ACM). This paper aims to review the evidence and quantify these effects, adjusted for other physical activity (PA).Data sourcesWe conducted a systematic review to identify relevant studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 using the following health databases of publications: Embase (OvidSP); Medline (OvidSP); Web of Knowledge; CINAHL; SCOPUS; SPORTDiscus. We also searched reference lists of relevant texts and reviews.Study eligibility criteria and participantsEligible studies were prospective cohort design and reporting walking or cycling exposure and mortality as an outcome. Only cohorts of individuals healthy at baseline were considered eligible.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsExtracted data included study population and location, sample size, population characteristics (age and sex), follow-up in years, walking or cycling exposure, mortality outcome, and adjustment for other co-variables. We used random-effects meta-analyses to investigate the beneficial effects of regular walking and cycling.ResultsWalking (18 results from 14 studies) and cycling (8 results from 7 studies) were shown to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, adjusted for other PA. For a standardised dose of 11.25 MET.hours per week (or 675 MET.minutes per week), the reduction in risk for ACM was 11% (95% CI =4 to 17%) for walking and 10% (95% CI =6 to 13%) for cycling. The estimates for walking are based on 280,000 participants and 2.6 million person-years and for cycling they are based on 187,000 individuals and 2.1 million person-years. The shape of the dose¿response relationship was modelled through meta-analysis of pooled relative risks within three exposure intervals. The dose¿response analysis showed that walking or cycling had the greatest effect on risk for ACM in the first (lowest) exposure interval.Conclusions and implicationsThe analysis shows that walking and cycling have population-level health benefits even after adjustment for other PA. Public health approaches would have the biggest impact if they are able to increase walking and cycling levels in the groups that have the lowest levels of these activities.Review registrationThe review protocol was registered with Prospero (International database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care) PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013004266.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 349 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 216 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 21%
Student > Master 38 17%
Researcher 34 15%
Unspecified 22 10%
Other 19 8%
Other 69 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 23%
Unspecified 44 19%
Sports and Recreations 30 13%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Environmental Science 18 8%
Other 61 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 446. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#21,636
of 13,886,068 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#4
of 1,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330
of 233,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,886,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.