3.8 Article

Reference Equations for the Six-Minute Walk Distance in Healthy Korean Adults, Aged 22-59 Years

Journal

TUBERCULOSIS AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES
Volume 76, Issue 6, Pages 269-275

Publisher

TAEHAN KYORHAEK HYOPHOE-KOREAN ACAD TUBERCULOSIS & RESPIRATORY DISEASES
DOI: 10.4046/trd.2014.76.6.269

Keywords

Exercise Tolerance; Exercise Test; Physical Endurance; Reference Values; Healthy Volunteersto

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The six-minute walk test has been widely used in people with chronic cardiopulmonary disorders as an outcome assessment with regards to therapeutic or prognostic determinants. This study was undertaken to determine the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) in a sample of healthy Koreans and to create a reference equation. We also compared the 6MWD of our cohort with previously published equations. Methods: Two hundred fifty-nine healthy subjects (95 males) aged 22-59 years performed two walking tests using a standardized protocol. 6MWD was defined as the greatest distance achieved from the two tests. The effect of anthropometrics on the 6MWD was also investigated. Results: The average 6MWD was 598.5 +/- 57.92 m, with significantly longer distances by males (628.9 +/- 59.51 m) than females (580.9 +/- 47.80 m) (p<0.001). Age, height, weight, and body mass index were significantly correlated with 6MWD in univariate analysis. Stepwise multiple regression showed height to be single independent predictor of 6MWD (r(2)=0.205, p<0.001). The reference equations derived in Caucasian and North African populations tend to overestimate the distance walked by Korean subjects, while Asian equations underestimate it. Conclusion: The average 6MWD in these Korean populations was 600 m. The regression equation revealed that individual's height was the most significant predictor of distance, explaining 20.5% of the distance variance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available