Cited by 131Physical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and Research

Impact of accelerometer and pedometer use on physical activity and glycaemic control in people with Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Baskerville, R., Ricci‐Cabello, I., Roberts, N., Farmer, A.·2017·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Background: Self‐directed pedometer use increases physical activity levels in the general population; however, evidence of benefit for Type 2 diabetes is unclear and has not been systematically reviewed for accelerometers. Aim: To examine the impact of using physical activity monitoring devices (pedometers and accelerometers) on free‐living physical activity and HbA 1c levels in people with Type 2 diabetes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review. Bibliographic databases included Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, SportDiscus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included controlled trials evaluating interventions based on the use of pedometers or accelerometers to promote physical activity in people with Type 2 diabetes. Primary outcomes were physical activity (min/week or steps) and HbA 1c [mmol/mol (%)]. Secondary outcomes were weight, blood pressure and lipid profile. Results: Twelve trials (1458 participants) were identified, of which nine studied pedometers and three accelerometers. Random‐effects meta‐analysis showed an overall increase in physical activity (standardized mean difference 0.57, 95% CI 0.24, 0.91) in the intervention groups. Accelerometers and pedometers produced a similar effect size. No significant differences were observed in HbA 1c, BMI, blood pressure or lipid profile. Conclusions: People with Type 2 diabetes, provided with an accelerometer or pedometer, substantially increased their free‐living physical activity. There is no evidence that monitor use alone improves HbA 1c or other clinical outcomes. Further trials are needed to compare the relative effects of activity monitors within differing complex interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.13331

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baskerville, R., Ricci‐Cabello, I., Roberts, N., & Farmer, A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Baskerville, R.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-19
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
612-620
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W2586162961
Cited by
131
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, accelerometer, pedometers, physical activity monitoring, physical activity, glycemic control, HbA1c, self-monitoring, weight, blood pressure, lipid profile
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Lipids, Exercise, Actigraphy, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review