4.4 Article

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the 6-Minute Walk Test in People With Stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGIC PHYSICAL THERAPY
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 235-240

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000236

Keywords

clinically important change; gait; human movement system; locomotion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available