OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a practice effect occurs across 2 trials of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) among community-dwelling people within 1 year poststroke and to identify characteristics distinguishing people who show a practice effect from those who do not. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of scores on 2 trials of the 6MWT administered approximately 30 minutes apart at baseline in a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: People (N=91) living in the community with a residual walking deficit within the first year of a first or recurrent stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Distance walked on the 6MWT. RESULTS:Mean 6MWT scores +/- SD for trials 1 and 2 were 196+/-119m and 197+/-126m, respectively (n=83). The mean difference in 6MWT performance across trials was 0+/-35m (95% confidence interval [CI], -7 to 8m). The Pearson correlation coefficient between 6MWT distances was .96 (P<.001), and the intraclass correlation coefficient was .98 (95% CI, .97-.99). The Bland-Altman plot showed no clear pattern. Participants whose improvement was equal to or greater than the minimal detectable change of 29m between trials (14%) did not significantly differ from those in the rest of the study sample; however, they tended to be younger (P=.05) and more likely to have a mild or moderate gait deficit (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Findings do not support a practice effect across 2 trials of the 6MWT in individuals within 1 year poststroke. Thus, a practice walk does not appear necessary. Further research is recommended to evaluate the influence of young age, acute stroke, and mild-to-moderate gait deficit on practice effects.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a practice effect occurs across 2 trials of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) among community-dwelling people within 1 year poststroke and to identify characteristics distinguishing people who show a practice effect from those who do not. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of scores on 2 trials of the 6MWT administered approximately 30 minutes apart at baseline in a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: People (N=91) living in the community with a residual walking deficit within the first year of a first or recurrent stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Distance walked on the 6MWT. RESULTS: Mean 6MWT scores +/- SD for trials 1 and 2 were 196+/-119m and 197+/-126m, respectively (n=83). The mean difference in 6MWT performance across trials was 0+/-35m (95% confidence interval [CI], -7 to 8m). The Pearson correlation coefficient between 6MWT distances was .96 (P<.001), and the intraclass correlation coefficient was .98 (95% CI, .97-.99). The Bland-Altman plot showed no clear pattern. Participants whose improvement was equal to or greater than the minimal detectable change of 29m between trials (14%) did not significantly differ from those in the rest of the study sample; however, they tended to be younger (P=.05) and more likely to have a mild or moderate gait deficit (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Findings do not support a practice effect across 2 trials of the 6MWT in individuals within 1 year poststroke. Thus, a practice walk does not appear necessary. Further research is recommended to evaluate the influence of young age, acute stroke, and mild-to-moderate gait deficit on practice effects.
Authors: Judith M Lam; Christoph Globas; Joachim Cerny; Benjamin Hertler; Kamil Uludag; Larry W Forrester; Richard F Macko; Daniel F Hanley; Clemens Becker; Andreas R Luft Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Carol L Richards; Anne Durand; Francine Malouin; Sylvie Nadeau; Joyce Fung; Line D'Amours; Claire Perez Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2020 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Alyssa D Stookey; Michael G McCusker; John D Sorkin; Leslie I Katzel; Marianne Shaughnessy; Richard F Macko; Frederick M Ivey Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Jennifer L Moore; Kirsten Potter; Kathleen Blankshain; Sandra L Kaplan; Linda C OʼDwyer; Jane E Sullivan Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Mary Stuart; Francesco Benvenuti; Richard Macko; Antonio Taviani; Lucianna Segenni; Federico Mayer; John D Sorkin; Steven J Stanhope; Velio Macellari; Michael Weinrich Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Divay Chandra; Robert A Wise; Hrishikesh S Kulkarni; Roberto P Benzo; Gerard Criner; Barry Make; William A Slivka; Andrew L Ries; John J Reilly; Fernando J Martinez; Frank C Sciurba Journal: Chest Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Elizabeth W Regan; Reed Handlery; Derek M Liuzzo; Jill C Stewart; Andrew R Burke; Garrett M Hainline; Curtis Horn; Jonathan T Keown; Abby E McManus; Brianna S Lawless; Morgan Purcell; Stacy Fritz Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 2.554