Banach · European journal of preventive cardiology 2023 · systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies · n=17 studies (226,889 participants)

The association between daily step count and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a meta-analysis.

Cited 238 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Meta-analysis of observational cohort studies

PubMed 37555441 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwad229 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of electronic databases up to June 12, 2022, to evaluate the association between daily step count and all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Data from 17 cohort studies including 226,889 participants (generally healthy or at CV risk, median follow-up 7.1 years) were analyzed using an inverse-variance weighted random-effects model and restricted cubic splines to assess dose-response relationships.

What was found

A 1,000-step increment per day was associated with a 15% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.81–0.91; P < 0.001), while a 500-step increment per day was associated with a 7% reduction in CV mortality (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.91–0.95; P < 0.001). Lower risk of all-cause mortality emerged above a reference median of 3,867 steps/day, with Q1 (5,537 steps), Q2 (7,370 steps), and Q3 (11,529 steps) showing 48%, 55%, and 67% lower risk, respectively (P < 0.05). For CV mortality, lower risk began above a reference median of 2,337 steps/day, with Q1 (3,982 steps), Q2 (6,661 steps), and Q3 (10,413 steps) showing 16%, 49%, and 77% reductions, respectively (P < 0.05). Spline analysis confirmed a non-linear dose-response curve with mortality decreasing progressively up to 20,000 steps/day.

Why it matters

This meta-analysis shows that meaningful longevity and cardiovascular benefits begin well below the popular 10,000 steps/day threshold, with risk reductions evident starting around 2,500 to 4,000 steps daily.

Limits

The findings are derived entirely from observational cohorts, so reverse causality (subclinical illness reducing physical activity) and unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out. The abstract does not detail differences in step-measurement devices, exposure assessment periods, or specific subgroup adjustments across the included cohorts.

Cited by