Richard W Bohannon1, Rebecca Crouch1. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Campbell University, Lillington, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is widely used as a test of functional exercise capacity. Several studies have reported the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the 6MWT; however, the findings of the studies have not been examined in the context of one another. In this review, we aimed to summarize available information on the MCID for the 6MWT performed by patients with pathology. METHODS: Relevant literature was identified by searches of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health), examination of article reference lists, and consultation with an expert. Inclusion necessitated that articles (1) be original, full length, and peer reviewed, (2) report an MCID for the 6MWT, and (3) focus on adults with medical issues. Articles were excluded if the MCID was determined by a procedure other than receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Articles were abstracted for information on participants, interventions, 6MWT distance, and the determination of MCID. Quality was assessed using a hybrid 9-item (0- to 18-point) instrument. RESULTS: Six articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The populations studied included people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, coronary artery disease, diffuse parenchymal lung disease, and non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis and adults with fear of falling. Mean baseline 6MWT distances ranged from 295 to 551 m. The MCIDs for which the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was at least 0.70 ranged from 14.0 to 30.5 m. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, a change of 14.0 to 30.5 m may be clinically important across multiple patient groups.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is widely used as a test of functional exercise capacity. Several studies have reported the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the 6MWT; however, the findings of the studies have not been examined in the context of one another. In this review, we aimed to summarize available information on the MCID for the 6MWT performed by patients with pathology. METHODS: Relevant literature was identified by searches of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health), examination of article reference lists, and consultation with an expert. Inclusion necessitated that articles (1) be original, full length, and peer reviewed, (2) report an MCID for the 6MWT, and (3) focus on adults with medical issues. Articles were excluded if the MCID was determined by a procedure other than receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Articles were abstracted for information on participants, interventions, 6MWT distance, and the determination of MCID. Quality was assessed using a hybrid 9-item (0- to 18-point) instrument. RESULTS: Six articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The populations studied included people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, coronary artery disease, diffuse parenchymal lung disease, and non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis and adults with fear of falling. Mean baseline 6MWT distances ranged from 295 to 551 m. The MCIDs for which the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was at least 0.70 ranged from 14.0 to 30.5 m. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, a change of 14.0 to 30.5 m may be clinically important across multiple patient groups.
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: Elizabeth St Lezin; Matthew S Karafin; Roberta Bruhn; Dhuly Chowdhury; Lirong Qu; Walter Bialkowski; Scott Merenda; Pamela D'Andrea; Anne-Lyne McCalla; Lisa Anderson; Sheila M Keating; Mars Stone; Edward L Snyder; Donald Brambilla; Edward L Murphy; Philip J Norris; Joan F Hilton; Bryan R Spencer; Steven Kleinman; Jeffrey L Carson Journal: Transfusion Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Rod S Taylor; Sarah Walker; Neil A Smart; Massimo F Piepoli; Fiona C Warren; Oriana Ciani; David Whellan; Christopher O'Connor; Steven J Keteyian; Andrew Coats; Constantinos H Davos; Hasnain M Dalal; Kathleen Dracup; Lorraine S Evangelista; Kate Jolly; Jonathan Myers; Birgitta B Nilsson; Claudio Passino; Miles D Witham; Gloria Y Yeh Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mary Stuart; Alexander W Dromerick; Richard Macko; Francesco Benvenuti; Brock Beamer; John Sorkin; Sarah Chard; Michael Weinrich Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Dominic O'Connor; Matilde Mora Fernandez; Gabriel Signorelli; Pedro Valero; Brian Caulfield Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Andrew P Ambrosy; Susanna R Stevens; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Jean L Rouleau; Nadia Bouabdallaoui; Peter E Carson; Christopher Adlbrecht; John G F Cleland; Rafal Dabrowski; Krzysztof S Golba; Ileana L Pina; Carla A Sueta; Ambuj Roy; George Sopko; Robert O Bonow; Eric J Velazquez Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Marinda Henskens; Ilse M Nauta; Marieke C A van Eekeren; Erik J A Scherder Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 2.959