Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Effects of frequency, intensity, duration and volume of walking interventions on CVD risk factors: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials among inactive healthy adults.

British journal of sports medicine
June 1, 2018
Pekka Oja et al. (6 authors)
Journal ArticleMeta-AnalysisReviewSystematic ReviewHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to assess the effects of walking interventions on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and explore dose-response relationships between walking frequency, intensity, duration, and CVD risk improvements.

Results Summary

Walking interventions showed favorable effects on seven CVD risk factors, including body mass, blood pressure, and fasting glucose, but the study found insufficient evidence to quantify the specific walking parameters required for optimal benefits.

Population

Inactive but healthy adults aged 18 years or older (81% women).

Effective Dosage

Not specified

Duration

≥8 weeks

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (7)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
walking intervention
decrease
body mass
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#1
walking intervention
decrease
body mass index
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#2
walking intervention
decrease
body fat
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#3
walking intervention
decrease
systolic blood pressure
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#4
walking intervention
decrease
diastolic blood pressure
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#5
walking intervention
decrease
fasting glucose
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#6
walking intervention
increase
VO2max
inactive but healthy participants ≥18 years old
-
showed favourable effects
#7
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Walking interventions in healthy populations show clinically relevant improvements for many cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. We aimed to assess the changes in CVD risk factors and the dose-response relationship between frequency, intensity, duration and volume of walking and cardiovascular risk factors based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases searched from January 1971 to April 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Walking RCTs reporting one or more CVD risk factor outcomes; trials including at least one group with walking intervention and a no-walking control group; duration ≥8 weeks; participants ≥18 years old, inactive but healthy; risk factors assessed preintervention and postintervention; English-language articles in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: Thirty-seven RCTs, involving 2001 participants (81% women) and assessing 13 CVD risk factors, were identified. Pooled meta-analysis showed favourable effects (P≤0.05) of walking intervention for seven CVD risk factors (body mass, body mass index, body fat, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose and VO SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Walking interventions benefit a number of CVD risk factors. Despite multiple studies and tested metrics, only a few dose-response relationships were identified and the possibility of chance findings cannot be ruled out. There is insufficient evidence to quantify the frequency, length, bout duration, intensity and volume of the walking required to improve CVD risk factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016039409.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Blood PressureBody Mass IndexCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansLipidsMalePrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegression AnalysisRisk FactorsTime FactorsWaist CircumferenceWalking
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy75/10
Quality85/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations89
Citations/Year12.7
Relative Citation Ratio4.10
NIH Percentile90.5%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.95
Weight Score2.46
Normalized Score0.67
Related Supplements