Ulla Evers Larsson1, Signy Reynisdottir. 1. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. Ulla.Evers.Larsson@ki.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility and validity of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) in men and women with obesity in order to facilitate evaluation of treatment outcome. METHOD: A test--retest design was used to test reproducibility and a comparative design to test known group validity. Forty-three obese outpatients (16 male), mean age 47 (21-62) years, mean body mass index (BMI) 40 (3-62)kg-m(-2) performed the 6MWT twice within one week. Intraclass correlation (ICC1.1) and measurement error (S(w)) were calculated from the mean square values derived from a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA (fixed effect model). The reproducibility was also analysed by means of coefficient of variation (CV) and the Bland Altman method including 95% limits of agreement. The variance of the distance walked was analysed by means of regressions. The known group validity of the 6MWT (distance walked and the work of walking) in obese participants was shown by comparisons with 41 lean participants (18 male), mean age 47 (24-65) years, mean BMI 22.7 kg-m(-2) (19-25). RESULTS: The obese group walked 534 m (confidence interval [CI] 508-560 the first and 552 m (CI 523-580) the second walk (p < 0.001). S(w) was 25 m, CV 4.7%, ICC1.1 was 0.96. The limits of agreement were -46 m+80 m. The validity tests showed that they walked 162 m shorter (p < 0.001) and performed much heavier work (p < 0.001) than the lean group. In the obese group, BMI alone explained 38% of the variance of the distance walked. CONCLUSIONS: The 6MWT showed good reproducibility and known group validity and can be recommended for evaluating walking ability in subjects with obesity. For individual evaluation, however, an improved walking distance of at least 80 m was required to make the difference clinically significant. Despite shorter walking distance the obese participants performed heavier work than the lean. (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility and validity of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) in men and women with obesity in order to facilitate evaluation of treatment outcome. METHOD: A test--retest design was used to test reproducibility and a comparative design to test known group validity. Forty-three obese outpatients (16 male), mean age 47 (21-62) years, mean body mass index (BMI) 40 (3-62)kg-m(-2) performed the 6MWT twice within one week. Intraclass correlation (ICC1.1) and measurement error (S(w)) were calculated from the mean square values derived from a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA (fixed effect model). The reproducibility was also analysed by means of coefficient of variation (CV) and the Bland Altman method including 95% limits of agreement. The variance of the distance walked was analysed by means of regressions. The known group validity of the 6MWT (distance walked and the work of walking) in obeseparticipants was shown by comparisons with 41 lean participants (18 male), mean age 47 (24-65) years, mean BMI 22.7 kg-m(-2) (19-25). RESULTS: The obese group walked 534 m (confidence interval [CI] 508-560 the first and 552 m (CI 523-580) the second walk (p < 0.001). S(w) was 25 m, CV 4.7%, ICC1.1 was 0.96. The limits of agreement were -46 m+80 m. The validity tests showed that they walked 162 m shorter (p < 0.001) and performed much heavier work (p < 0.001) than the lean group. In the obese group, BMI alone explained 38% of the variance of the distance walked. CONCLUSIONS: The 6MWT showed good reproducibility and known group validity and can be recommended for evaluating walking ability in subjects with obesity. For individual evaluation, however, an improved walking distance of at least 80 m was required to make the difference clinically significant. Despite shorter walking distance the obeseparticipants performed heavier work than the lean. (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Jennalee S Wooldridge; Matthew S Herbert; Jeffrey Hernandez; Cara Dochat; Kathryn M Godfrey; Marianna Gasperi; Niloofar Afari Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2019-08
Authors: Kelly A Aschbrenner; Mary F Brunette; Raleigh McElvery; John A Naslund; Emily A Scherer; Sarah I Pratt; Stephen J Bartels Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Stephen J Bartels; Sarah I Pratt; Kelly A Aschbrenner; Laura K Barre; John A Naslund; Rosemarie Wolfe; Haiyi Xie; Gregory J McHugo; Daniel E Jimenez; Ken Jue; James Feldman; Bruce L Bird Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: John A Naslund; Kelly A Aschbrenner; Emily A Scherer; Gregory J McHugo; Lisa A Marsch; Stephen J Bartels Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2016-07-02 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: John A Naslund; Kelly A Aschbrenner; Emily A Scherer; Sarah I Pratt; Rosemarie S Wolfe; Stephen J Bartels Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kathryn M Ross; Vanessa A Milsom; Katie A Rickel; Ninoska Debraganza; Lauren M Gibbons; Mary E Murawski; Michael G Perri Journal: Eat Behav Date: 2008-12-16
Authors: Stephen J Bartels; Sarah I Pratt; Kelly A Aschbrenner; Laura K Barre; Kenneth Jue; Rosemarie S Wolfe; Haiyi Xie; Gregory McHugo; Meghan Santos; Gail E Williams; John A Naslund; Kim T Mueser Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.084