Eva Segura-Ortí1, Francisco José Martínez-Olmos. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera, Avda Seminario s/n, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain. esegura@uch.ceu.es
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the relative and absolute reliability of outcomes of physical performance tests for people undergoing hemodialysis is necessary to discriminate between the true effects of exercise interventions and the inherent variability of this cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the relative reliability of sit-to-stand-to-sit tests (the STS-10, which measures the time [in seconds] required to complete 10 full stands from a sitting position, and the STS-60, which measures the number of repetitions achieved in 60 seconds), the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), the one-leg heel-rise test, and the handgrip strength test and to calculate minimal detectable change (MDC) scores in people undergoing hemodialysis. DESIGN: This study was a prospective, nonexperimental investigation. METHODS: Thirty-nine people undergoing hemodialysis at 2 clinics in Spain were contacted. Study participants performed the STS-10 (n=37), the STS-60 (n=37), and the 6MWT (n=36). At one of the settings, the participants also performed the one-leg heel-rise test (n=21) and the handgrip strength test (n=12) on both the right and the left sides. Participants attended 2 testing sessions 1 to 2 weeks apart. RESULTS: High intraclass correlation coefficients (≥.88) were found for all tests, suggesting good relative reliability. The MDC scores at 90% confidence intervals were as follows: 8.4 seconds for the STS-10, 4 repetitions for the STS-60, 66.3 m for the 6MWT, 3.4 kg for handgrip strength (force-generating capacity), 3.7 repetitions for the one-leg heel-rise test with the right leg, and 5.2 repetitions for the one-leg heel-rise test with the left leg. Limitations A limited sample of patients was used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The STS-16, STS-60, 6MWT, one-leg heel rise test, and handgrip strength test are reliable outcome measures. The MDC scores at 90% confidence intervals for these tests will help to determine whether a change is due to error or to an intervention.
BACKGROUND: Determining the relative and absolute reliability of outcomes of physical performance tests for people undergoing hemodialysis is necessary to discriminate between the true effects of exercise interventions and the inherent variability of this cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the relative reliability of sit-to-stand-to-sit tests (the STS-10, which measures the time [in seconds] required to complete 10 full stands from a sitting position, and the STS-60, which measures the number of repetitions achieved in 60 seconds), the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), the one-leg heel-rise test, and the handgrip strength test and to calculate minimal detectable change (MDC) scores in people undergoing hemodialysis. DESIGN: This study was a prospective, nonexperimental investigation. METHODS: Thirty-nine people undergoing hemodialysis at 2 clinics in Spain were contacted. Study participants performed the STS-10 (n=37), the STS-60 (n=37), and the 6MWT (n=36). At one of the settings, the participants also performed the one-leg heel-rise test (n=21) and the handgrip strength test (n=12) on both the right and the left sides. Participants attended 2 testing sessions 1 to 2 weeks apart. RESULTS: High intraclass correlation coefficients (≥.88) were found for all tests, suggesting good relative reliability. The MDC scores at 90% confidence intervals were as follows: 8.4 seconds for the STS-10, 4 repetitions for the STS-60, 66.3 m for the 6MWT, 3.4 kg for handgrip strength (force-generating capacity), 3.7 repetitions for the one-leg heel-rise test with the right leg, and 5.2 repetitions for the one-leg heel-rise test with the left leg. Limitations A limited sample of patients was used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The STS-16, STS-60, 6MWT, one-leg heel rise test, and handgrip strength test are reliable outcome measures. The MDC scores at 90% confidence intervals for these tests will help to determine whether a change is due to error or to an intervention.
Authors: Sharlene A Greenwood; Pelagia Koufaki; Jamie H Macdonald; Catherine Bulley; Sunil Bhandari; James O Burton; Indranil Dasgupta; Kenneth Farrington; Ian Ford; Philip A Kalra; Mick Kumwenda; Iain C Macdougall; Claudia-Martina Messow; Sandip Mitra; Chante Reid; Alice C Smith; Maarten W Taal; Peter C Thomson; David C Wheeler; Claire White; Magdi Yaqoob; Thomas H Mercer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: I Beberashvili; A Azar; I Sinuani; G Shapiro; L Feldman; K Stav; J Sandbank; Z Averbukh Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Xingxing S Cheng; Jonathan Myers; Jialin Han; Margaret R Stedman; Daniel J Watford; Jenny Lee; Kevin V Discipulo; Khin N Chan; Glenn M Chertow; Jane C Tan Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2020-06-06 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Javier Abián-Vicén; Juan Del Coso; Cristina González-Millán; Juan José Salinero; Pablo Abián Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 3.240