4.6 Article

Predicting Daily Physical Activity in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048081

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Objectively measuring daily physical activity (PA) using an accelerometer is a relatively expensive and time-consuming undertaking. In routine clinical practice it would be useful to estimate PA in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with more simple methods. Objectives: To evaluate whether PA can be estimated by simple tests commonly used in clinical practice in patients with COPD. Methods: The average number of steps per day was measured for 7 days with a SenseWear Pro (TM) accelerometer and used as gold standard for PA. A physical activity level (PAL) of <1.4 was considered very inactive. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine the relationship between the 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), the number of stands in the Sit-to-Stand Test (STST), hand-grip strength and the total energy expenditure as assessed by the Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire (TEEZPAQ). ROC curve analysis was used to identify patients with an extremely inactive lifestyle (PAL<1.4). Results: In 70 patients with COPD (21 females) with a mean [SD] FEV1 of 43.0 [22.0] % predicted, PA was found to be significantly and independently associated with the 6MWD (r = 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.80, p<0.001), STST (r = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66, p = 0.001) and TEEZPAQ (r = 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66, p<0.001) but not with hand-grip strength. However, ROC curve analysis demonstrated that these tests cannot be used to reliably identify patients with an extremely inactive lifestyle. Conclusions: In patients with COPD simple tests such as the 6-Minute Walk Test, the Sit-to-Stand Test and the Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire cannot be used to reliably predict physical inactivity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available