OBJECTIVE: To compare the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test performed on a non-motorised treadmill (6MWD-T) with the 6MWD test performed in a corridor (6MWD-C) in healthy elderly subjects. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen healthy elderly individuals. DESIGN: Participants performed three 6MWD-T tests and three 6MWD-C tests on two different days. OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance walked was recorded in metres. Perceived exertion and leg fatigue were rated on the modified Borg scale before and after each test. RESULTS: Using the Bland and Altman limits of agreement analysis method, the mean difference between the two methods was 153.3m (limits of agreement: 28 to 278). The mean difference between days 1 and 2 for the 6MWD-C test was -7.2m (limits of agreement: -45.4 to 30.8), and the mean difference between days 1 and 2 for the 6MWD-T test was -1.6m (limits of agreement: -64.0 to 60.7). The mean difference between the first and second repetitions of the 6MWD-C test was -5m (limits of agreement: -41 to 31), and the mean difference between the first and second repetitions of the 6MWD-T test was -17m (limits of agreement: -85 to 51). CONCLUSIONS: The 6MWD-C and 6MWD-T tests are not interchangeable. However, the results showed good test-retest reliability between days and between test repetitions for both tests. Therefore, the 6MWD-T test may offer an alternative option to the 6MWD-C test when a 30-m corridor is not available. These findings may have implications for execution of the 6MWT-T test within cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. Copyright 2010 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test performed on a non-motorised treadmill (6MWD-T) with the 6MWD test performed in a corridor (6MWD-C) in healthy elderly subjects. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen healthy elderly individuals. DESIGN:Participants performed three 6MWD-T tests and three 6MWD-C tests on two different days. OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance walked was recorded in metres. Perceived exertion and leg fatigue were rated on the modified Borg scale before and after each test. RESULTS: Using the Bland and Altman limits of agreement analysis method, the mean difference between the two methods was 153.3m (limits of agreement: 28 to 278). The mean difference between days 1 and 2 for the 6MWD-C test was -7.2m (limits of agreement: -45.4 to 30.8), and the mean difference between days 1 and 2 for the 6MWD-T test was -1.6m (limits of agreement: -64.0 to 60.7). The mean difference between the first and second repetitions of the 6MWD-C test was -5m (limits of agreement: -41 to 31), and the mean difference between the first and second repetitions of the 6MWD-T test was -17m (limits of agreement: -85 to 51). CONCLUSIONS: The 6MWD-C and 6MWD-T tests are not interchangeable. However, the results showed good test-retest reliability between days and between test repetitions for both tests. Therefore, the 6MWD-T test may offer an alternative option to the 6MWD-C test when a 30-m corridor is not available. These findings may have implications for execution of the 6MWT-T test within cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. Copyright 2010 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Wai-Yan Liu; Kenneth Meijer; Jeannet M Delbressine; Paul J Willems; Frits M E Franssen; Emiel F M Wouters; Martijn A Spruit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240