4.4 Article

Glittre activities of daily living test is reliable and valid in hemodialysis patients

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 542-548

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2029961

Keywords

End-stage renal disease; renal dialysis; activities of daily living; exercise test; evaluation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the TGlittre test in chronic kidney disease patients. The results showed a moderate correlation between TGlittre performance and physical activity levels. The test demonstrated good relative reliability and low absolute reliability when assessed within the same day.
Purpose To examine the validity, and the relative and absolute within-day reliability of the TGlittre in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). Materials and methods Thirty HD patients (52 +/- 12 years) undertook the TGlittre twice on a single day, in a cross-sectional design. For validation purposes, participants TGlittre performance and accelerometry-based physical activity were correlated. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were determined to assess within-day reliability. Results There was a moderate correlation between TGlittre performance and moderate to vigorous physical activity (r= -0.587; p= 0.001). The relative reliability of the test showed an ICC of 0.96. For the absolute reliability, the SEM was 13.05 s (0.22 min), and the MDC was 36.17 s (0.60 min). Conclusions TGlittre performance is associated with moderate to vigorous physical activity in HD patients, highlighting that those with higher levels of physical activity are likely to perform better on the TGlittre. Additionally, TGlittre shows a good to excellent intra-rater reliability and a low SEM. An MDC value was established.

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