Suelen Roberta Klein1, Aline Almeida Gulart1, Raysa Silva Venâncio2, Anelise Bauer Munari1, Simone Graciosa Gavenda2, Ana Carolina Benedet Martins3, Anamaria Fleig Mayer4. 1. Center for Assistance, Teaching and Research in Pulmonary Rehabilitation (NuReab), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; Human Movement Sciences Graduate Program, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. 2. Center for Assistance, Teaching and Research in Pulmonary Rehabilitation (NuReab), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; Physical Therapy Graduate Program, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. 3. Center for Assistance, Teaching and Research in Pulmonary Rehabilitation (NuReab), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. 4. Center for Assistance, Teaching and Research in Pulmonary Rehabilitation (NuReab), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; Human Movement Sciences Graduate Program, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; Physical Therapy Graduate Program, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. Electronic address: anamaria.mayer@udesc.br.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional capacity assessment is important in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It can be performed by the six-minute walk test (6MWT) on a 30-meter track. However, such space is not always available in clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance between the 6MWT on a 30- (6MWT30) and 20-meter (6MWT20) track; to evaluate the validity and reliability of the 6MWT30 and the 6MWT20; and to determine for which patients track length has the greatest impact on performance. METHODS: Patients with COPD randomly performed two 6MWT30 and two 6MWT20 on two different days and were also assessed using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale. RESULTS: Thirty patients (23 men; mean ± standard deviation FEV1%pred: 45.6 ± 12.1) participated in the study. They walked a greater distance on the 6MWT30 than on the 6MWT20 [mean difference: 22.1 m (95% CI: 12, 32 m)]. The longer the 6MWT30 distance, the greater the difference between the 2 tests (r = 0.51; p = 0.004). The 6MWT20 showed high reliability [ICC: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.99)] and the results were associated with the distance walked on the 6MWT30 (r = 0.86), CAT (r = -0.53), and mMRC (r = -0.62). Patients who walked ≥430 m in the 6MWT30 presented a difference between the tests greater than those who walked <430 m (34.5 ± 23.3 m vs. 12.6 ± 24.1 m; respectively; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Performance was higher on the 6MWT30, with the difference increasing as performance improved. Therefore, the 6MWT20 is valid and reliable to evaluate functional capacity but should not be considered interchangeable with the 6MWT30, especially for the less disabled patients with COPD.
BACKGROUND: Functional capacity assessment is important in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It can be performed by the six-minute walk test (6MWT) on a 30-meter track. However, such space is not always available in clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance between the 6MWT on a 30- (6MWT30) and 20-meter (6MWT20) track; to evaluate the validity and reliability of the 6MWT30 and the 6MWT20; and to determine for which patients track length has the greatest impact on performance. METHODS:Patients with COPD randomly performed two 6MWT30 and two 6MWT20 on two different days and were also assessed using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale. RESULTS: Thirty patients (23 men; mean ± standard deviation FEV1%pred: 45.6 ± 12.1) participated in the study. They walked a greater distance on the 6MWT30 than on the 6MWT20 [mean difference: 22.1 m (95% CI: 12, 32 m)]. The longer the 6MWT30 distance, the greater the difference between the 2 tests (r = 0.51; p = 0.004). The 6MWT20 showed high reliability [ICC: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.99)] and the results were associated with the distance walked on the 6MWT30 (r = 0.86), CAT (r = -0.53), and mMRC (r = -0.62). Patients who walked ≥430 m in the 6MWT30 presented a difference between the tests greater than those who walked <430 m (34.5 ± 23.3 m vs. 12.6 ± 24.1 m; respectively; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Performance was higher on the 6MWT30, with the difference increasing as performance improved. Therefore, the 6MWT20 is valid and reliable to evaluate functional capacity but should not be considered interchangeable with the 6MWT30, especially for the less disabled patients with COPD.
Authors: J Wanger; J L Clausen; A Coates; O F Pedersen; V Brusasco; F Burgos; R Casaburi; R Crapo; P Enright; C P M van der Grinten; P Gustafsson; J Hankinson; R Jensen; D Johnson; N Macintyre; R McKay; M R Miller; D Navajas; R Pellegrino; G Viegi Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: M R Miller; J Hankinson; V Brusasco; F Burgos; R Casaburi; A Coates; R Crapo; P Enright; C P M van der Grinten; P Gustafsson; R Jensen; D C Johnson; N MacIntyre; R McKay; D Navajas; O F Pedersen; R Pellegrino; G Viegi; J Wanger Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Anne E Holland; Martijn A Spruit; Thierry Troosters; Milo A Puhan; Véronique Pepin; Didier Saey; Meredith C McCormack; Brian W Carlin; Frank C Sciurba; Fabio Pitta; Jack Wanger; Neil MacIntyre; David A Kaminsky; Bruce H Culver; Susan M Revill; Nidia A Hernandes; Vasileios Andrianopoulos; Carlos Augusto Camillo; Katy E Mitchell; Annemarie L Lee; Catherine J Hill; Sally J Singh Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Frank Sciurba; Gerard J Criner; Shing M Lee; Zab Mohsenifar; David Shade; William Slivka; Robert A Wise Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: A Borghi-Silva; C C Oliveira; C Carrascosa; J Maia; D C Berton; F Queiroga; E M Ferreira; D R Almeida; L E Nery; J A Neder Journal: Thorax Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Beatriz Carpallo-Porcar; Laura Romo-Calvo; Sara Pérez-Palomares; Carolina Jiménez-Sánchez; Pablo Herrero; Natalia Brandín-de la Cruz; Sandra Calvo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 3.752