STUDY DESIGN: The 10-m walk test (10MWT) and the 6-min walk test (6MWT) have been recommended for assessment of walking in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients. The study was designed on test-retest analysis of the 10MWT and 6MWT. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess validity/reliability of different methods of performing the tests. SETTING: The study was set at an SCI unit of a rehabilitation hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients; whose median age was 58.5 years (interquartile range 40-66, full range 19-77); median time since onset of SCI was 24 months (interquartile range 16.25-70.5, full range 6-109). Non-traumatic etiology in 20 out of 37 patients; level: 12C, 14T and 11L; American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade: 35D/2C. Assessment with the 10MWT (with or without dynamic start) and the 6MWT (short or long track) by two blinded raters to evaluate inter/intra-rater reliabilities. RESULTS: The 10MWT was performed in a median of 19 s (25th-75th interquartile range 13-28) with the dynamic start and of 18.4 s (25th-75th interquartile range 12.6-29.9) with the static start (P=0.092). The correlation between the results of the two methods was between 0.98 and 0.99. The inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were between 0.95 and 0.99 for both the methods. The 6MWT showed significant differences according to the track length: patients walked a median of 226.7 m (25th-75th interquartile range 123.2-319) on the longer track and of 187.6 m (25th-75th interquartile range 69.7-240.6) on the short one (P<0.001). The correlation between the results of the two methods was between 0.91 and 0.93. The inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were between 0.98 and 0.99. CONCLUSION: The 10MWT shows high inter/intra-rater reliability and shows comparable results with both dynamic and static start. The different testing conditions of the 6MWT (track/turns) results in significant differences that need standardization for use in future trials.
STUDY DESIGN: The 10-m walk test (10MWT) and the 6-min walk test (6MWT) have been recommended for assessment of walking in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients. The study was designed on test-retest analysis of the 10MWT and 6MWT. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess validity/reliability of different methods of performing the tests. SETTING: The study was set at an SCI unit of a rehabilitation hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients; whose median age was 58.5 years (interquartile range 40-66, full range 19-77); median time since onset of SCI was 24 months (interquartile range 16.25-70.5, full range 6-109). Non-traumatic etiology in 20 out of 37 patients; level: 12C, 14T and 11L; American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade: 35D/2C. Assessment with the 10MWT (with or without dynamic start) and the 6MWT (short or long track) by two blinded raters to evaluate inter/intra-rater reliabilities. RESULTS: The 10MWT was performed in a median of 19 s (25th-75th interquartile range 13-28) with the dynamic start and of 18.4 s (25th-75th interquartile range 12.6-29.9) with the static start (P=0.092). The correlation between the results of the two methods was between 0.98 and 0.99. The inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were between 0.95 and 0.99 for both the methods. The 6MWT showed significant differences according to the track length: patients walked a median of 226.7 m (25th-75th interquartile range 123.2-319) on the longer track and of 187.6 m (25th-75th interquartile range 69.7-240.6) on the short one (P<0.001). The correlation between the results of the two methods was between 0.91 and 0.93. The inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were between 0.98 and 0.99. CONCLUSION: The 10MWT shows high inter/intra-rater reliability and shows comparable results with both dynamic and static start. The different testing conditions of the 6MWT (track/turns) results in significant differences that need standardization for use in future trials.
Authors: Ursula S Hofstoetter; William B McKay; Keith E Tansey; Winfried Mayr; Helmut Kern; Karen Minassian Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Andrew D Delgado; Miguel X Escalon; Thomas N Bryce; William Weinrauch; Stephanie J Suarez; Allan J Kozlowski Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: A I Pérez-Sanpablo; J Quinzaños-Fresnedo; R Loera-Cruz; I Quiñones-Uriostegui; G Rodriguez-Reyes; R Pérez-Zavala Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 2.772
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: Denise R O'Dell; Kenneth A Weber; Jeffrey C Berliner; James M Elliott; Jordan R Connor; David P Cummins; Katherine A Heller; Joshua S Hubert; Megan J Kates; Katarina R Mendoza; Andrew C Smith Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Andrew C Smith; Kenneth A Weber; Denise R O'Dell; Todd B Parrish; Marie Wasielewski; James M Elliott Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Tara Jo Manal; Sarah Carolyn Smith; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Emma Haldane Beisheim; Elisa Sarah Arch; John Robert Horne; Jaclyn Megan Sions Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 1.895