Using step counters to promote physical activity and exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: Although step counters are popularly employed for physical rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, their effectiveness is inconsistent and even questioned. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether step counter use increases physical activity or improves exercise capacity in COPD patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of step counter use in increasing physical activity or in improving exercise capacity. Data were aggregated using a random-effects model to get the overall effect sizes [standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI)], and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: A total of 15 trials enrolling 1316 patients with moderate to severe COPD were included. Step counter use increased physical activity compared with controls (SMD = 0.57, 95% CI 0.31–0.84), which is equal to a magnitude of 1026 steps/day in daily steps. It also enhanced exercise capacity with an effect size of 0.30 (95% CI 0.16–0.45), approximating to a magnitude of 11.6 m in the 6-min walking distance. Step counter use could augment physical activity (SMD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.19–1.08) and exercise capacity (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–0.62) for patients receiving pulmonary rehabilitation. Yet it cannot enhance physical activity or exercise capacity in patients with severe COPD or among studies with intervention durations ⩾6 months (both p > 0.50). Conclusions: Step counter use increases physical activity and improves exercise capacity in COPD patients, at least in the short term, which supports the notion of recommending step counter use in COPD management.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Use of wearable activity trackers has been associated with improved physiological outcomes, including reduced BMI, reduced blood pressure, and increased aerobic capacity.
“Additionally, using wearable activity trackers has been shown to be associated with improved physiological outcomes, such as reduced BMI, 10,11 reduced blood pressure, 10 and increased aerobic capacity, 9”
From Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Citation 9 is attached to increased aerobic capacity, not the BMI or blood-pressure claims. The Results section (page unavailable) reports improved exercise capacity with step-counter use in patients with COPD, measured chiefly by six-minute walking distance. It does not establish an increase in aerobic capacity measured directly, and the finding is specific to patients with COPD. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost reviews did not (or partly) report a cardiometabolic risk profile.
“In addition, conclusions are not based on randomised controlled trials [14, 22] and most of reviews did not (or partly) report a cardiometabolic risk profile [15, 19, 20, 23].”
Use of wearable activity trackers has been associated with increased physical activity.
“their use has been associated with increased physical activity.[7][8][9]”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 60
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [36]Higgins JPT Green S and Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, p. xxi, 649 p.
- Authors
- Qiu, S., Cai, X., Wang, X., He, C., Zügel, M., Steinacker, J. M., & Schumann, U.
- Affiliations
- Zhongda Hospital Southeast University (CN)
- University Hospital Ulm (DE)
- Division of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ulm University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany
- Corresponding author
- Qiu, Shanhu
- Venue
- Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-01-01
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 1753466618787386-1753466618787386
- ISSN
- 1753-4658 (ISSN-L)
- 1753-4666
- PMC
- PMC6048621
- OpenAlex
- W2847881387
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Keywords
- step counter, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, physical activity, exercise capacity, pulmonary rehabilitation, 6-minute walk distance, COPD severity, intervention duration
- MeSH terms
- Fitness Trackers, Exercise Therapy, Health Promotion, Humans, Lung, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Exercise Tolerance, Recovery of Function, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Actigraphy
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