George D Fulk1, Ying He. 1. Department of Physical Therapy Education (G.D.F.), SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York. Department of Mathematics (Y.H.), Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is commonly used in people with stroke. The purpose of this study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the 6MWT 2 months poststroke. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a rehabilitation trial. Participants underwent physical therapy between 2 and 6 months poststroke and the 6MWT was measured before and after. Two anchors of important change were used: the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). The MCID for the 6MWT was estimated using receiver operating characteristic curves for the entire sample and for 2 subgroups: initial gait speed (IGS) <0.40 m/s and ≥0.40 m/s. RESULTS: For the entire sample, the estimated MCID of the 6MWT was 71 m with the mRS as the anchor (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.66) and 65 m with the SIS as the anchor (AUC = 0.59). For participants with IGS <0.40 m/s, the estimated MCID was 44 m with the mRS as the anchor (AUC = 0.72) and 34 m with the SIS as the anchor (AUC = 0.62). For participants with IGS ≥0.40 m/s, the estimated MCID was 71 m with the mRS as the anchor (AUC = 0.59) and 130 m with the SIS as the anchor (AUC = 0.56). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Between 2 and 6 months poststroke, people whose IGS is <0.40 m/s and experience a 44-m improvement in the 6MWT may exhibit meaningful improvement in disability. However, we were not able to estimate an accurate MCID for the 6MWT in people whose IGS was ≥0.40 m/s. MCID values should be estimated across different levels of function and anchors of importance.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A232).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is commonly used in people with stroke. The purpose of this study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the 6MWT 2 months poststroke. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a rehabilitation trial. Participants underwent physical therapy between 2 and 6 months poststroke and the 6MWT was measured before and after. Two anchors of important change were used: the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). The MCID for the 6MWT was estimated using receiver operating characteristic curves for the entire sample and for 2 subgroups: initial gait speed (IGS) <0.40 m/s and ≥0.40 m/s. RESULTS: For the entire sample, the estimated MCID of the 6MWT was 71 m with the mRS as the anchor (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.66) and 65 m with the SIS as the anchor (AUC = 0.59). For participants with IGS <0.40 m/s, the estimated MCID was 44 m with the mRS as the anchor (AUC = 0.72) and 34 m with the SIS as the anchor (AUC = 0.62). For participants with IGS ≥0.40 m/s, the estimated MCID was 71 m with the mRS as the anchor (AUC = 0.59) and 130 m with the SIS as the anchor (AUC = 0.56). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Between 2 and 6 months poststroke, people whose IGS is <0.40 m/s and experience a 44-m improvement in the 6MWT may exhibit meaningful improvement in disability. However, we were not able to estimate an accurate MCID for the 6MWT in people whose IGS was ≥0.40 m/s. MCID values should be estimated across different levels of function and anchors of importance.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A232).
Authors: Luciana A Mendes; Illia Ndf Lima; Tulio Souza; George C do Nascimento; Vanessa R Resqueti; Guilherme Af Fregonezi Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-01-14
Authors: Seok Hun Kim; David E Huizenga; Ismet Handzic; Rebecca Edgeworth Ditwiler; Matthew Lazinski; Tyagi Ramakrishnan; Andrea Bozeman; David Z Rose; Kyle B Reed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Suzanne K O'Neal; Megan C Eikenberry; Alexander Bocchi; Kyle Carroll; Michelle Fettig; Parker Folliard; Clara Martinez Journal: Ann Med Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Susan Marzolini; Che-Yuan Wu; Rowaida Hussein; Lisa Y Xiong; Suban Kangatharan; Ardit Peni; Christopher R Cooper; Kylie S K Lau; Ghislaine Nzodjou Makhdoom; Maureen Pakosh; Stephanie A Zaban; Michelle M Nguyen; Mohammad Amin Banihashemi; Walter Swardfager Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Rocío Rodríguez-Romero; Carles Falces; Belchin Kostov; Noemí García-Planas; Esther Blat-Guimerà; María C Alvira-Balada; Mireia López-Poyato; María L Benito-Serrano; Ingrid Vidiella-Piñol; Juan J Zamora-Sánchez; Marta Benet; Manuel V Garnacho-Castaño; Susana Santos-Ruiz; Rosalia Santesmases-Masana; Silvia Roura-Rovira; Jaume Benavent-Areu; Antoni Sisó-Almirall; Luis González-de Paz Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Romain David; Maxime Billot; Etienne Ojardias; Bernard Parratte; Manuel Roulaud; Amine Ounajim; Frédéric Louis; Hachemi Meklat; Philippe Foucault; Christophe Lombard; Anne Jossart; Laura Mainini; Martin Lavallière; Lisa Goudman; Maarten Moens; Davy Laroche; Marjorie Salga; François Genêt; Jean-Christophe Daviet; Anaick Perrochon; Maxence Compagnat; Philippe Rigoard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Devine S Frundi; Eva Kettig; Lena Luise Popp; Melanie Hoffman; Marine Dumartin; Magali Hughes; Edgar Lamy; Yvonne Joko Walburga Fru; Arjola Bano; Taulant Muka; Matthias Wilhelm Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-07-22