BACKGROUND:Timed walking speed for 6 to 15 m and the distance walked in 2 to 12 minutes are frequently used outcome measures in rehabilitation trials, presumably reflecting different aspects of walking ability. The database from the Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial (SCILT), which tested 2 interventions for mobility upon admission for initial rehabilitation of an incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), was used to compare the walking speed employed for each test. METHODS: From 66 to 70 patients with upper motor neuron lesions from C-5 to T-10 performed a 15.2-m and a 6-minute walk as fast as the patient deemed safe at 3 months (end of the trial intervention) and 6 and 12 months after entry. The means, standard errors, and quartiles were calculated for the speed used for each task. RESULTS: The mean speed for the 15.2-m walk did not differ from that used for the 6-minute walk at 3 and 6 months but was significantly faster at 12 months. Differences became apparent at each assessment in patients in the highest quartiles (>1.0 m/s) for the 15.2-m walk. Their speed was from 14% to 24% higher than the speed used for the 6-minute walk. CONCLUSION: The speed of the 15.2-m walk as a measure of walking ability compared to the distance walked in 6 minutes may not represent separable domains of mobility. Differences were apparent only in the most highly functional patients, who could ambulate in the community. Any difference in the walking speed used for these 2 tasks does not make enough of a clinical distinction to encourage including both a 6-minute walk and a 15.2-m walk as outcome measures in clinical trials of locomotor interventions for SCI.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Timed walking speed for 6 to 15 m and the distance walked in 2 to 12 minutes are frequently used outcome measures in rehabilitation trials, presumably reflecting different aspects of walking ability. The database from the Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial (SCILT), which tested 2 interventions for mobility upon admission for initial rehabilitation of an incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), was used to compare the walking speed employed for each test. METHODS: From 66 to 70 patients with upper motor neuron lesions from C-5 to T-10 performed a 15.2-m and a 6-minute walk as fast as the patient deemed safe at 3 months (end of the trial intervention) and 6 and 12 months after entry. The means, standard errors, and quartiles were calculated for the speed used for each task. RESULTS: The mean speed for the 15.2-m walk did not differ from that used for the 6-minute walk at 3 and 6 months but was significantly faster at 12 months. Differences became apparent at each assessment in patients in the highest quartiles (>1.0 m/s) for the 15.2-m walk. Their speed was from 14% to 24% higher than the speed used for the 6-minute walk. CONCLUSION: The speed of the 15.2-m walk as a measure of walking ability compared to the distance walked in 6 minutes may not represent separable domains of mobility. Differences were apparent only in the most highly functional patients, who could ambulate in the community. Any difference in the walking speed used for these 2 tasks does not make enough of a clinical distinction to encourage including both a 6-minute walk and a 15.2-m walk as outcome measures in clinical trials of locomotor interventions for SCI.
Authors: Bruce H Dobkin; David Apple; Hugues Barbeau; Michele Basso; Andrea Behrman; Dan Deforge; John Ditunno; Gary Dudley; Robert Elashoff; Lisa Fugate; Susan Harkema; Michael Saulino; Michael Scott Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: B Dobkin; H Barbeau; D Deforge; J Ditunno; R Elashoff; D Apple; M Basso; A Behrman; S Harkema; M Saulino; M Scott Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: S R Schwid; A D Goodman; D H Mattson; C Mihai; K M Donohoe; M D Petrie; E A Scheid; J T Dudman; M P McDermott Journal: Neurology Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kaveh Saremi; Jon Marehbian; Xiaohong Yan; Jean-Philippe Regnaux; Robert Elashoff; Bernard Bussel; Bruce H Dobkin Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Gail F Forrest; Karen Hutchinson; Douglas J Lorenz; Jeffrey J Buehner; Leslie R Vanhiel; Sue Ann Sisto; D Michele Basso Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marc Bolliger; Andrew R Blight; Edelle C Field-Fote; Kristin Musselman; Serge Rossignol; Dorothy Barthélemy; Laurent Bouyer; Milos R Popovic; Jan M Schwab; Michael L Boninger; Keith E Tansey; Giorgio Scivoletto; Naomi Kleitman; Linda A T Jones; Dany H Gagnon; Sylvie Nadeau; Dirk Haupt; Lea Awai; Chris S Easthope; Björn Zörner; Ruediger Rupp; Dan Lammertse; Armin Curt; John Steeves Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Massimo Russo; Christian Lunetta; Riccardo Zuccarino; Gian L Vita; Maria Sframeli; Andrea Lizio; Stefania La Foresta; Cristina Faraone; Valeria A Sansone; Giuseppe Vita; Sonia Messina Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.379