4.6 Article

The Duke Activity Status Index in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Reliability Study

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.07990811

关键词

-

资金

  1. Southern Alberta Renal Program
  2. Alberta Transplant Program
  3. Alberta Kidney Disease Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Exercise capacity is impaired at a younger age in CKD patients than in the general population. This study examined the reliability of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) questionnaire as a measure of exercise capacity in medically stable adults with stage 3-4 CKD (estimated GFR [eGFR], 15-59 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). Design, setting, participants, & measurements Peak oxygen uptake ((V) over dotO(2)peak), estimated from DASI responses and cardiopulmonary exercise test measurements, was obtained at baseline and 6 months in a derivation sample (n=23) and once in a validation sample (n=20). Bland-Altman analysis and linear mixed models were used to estimate bias, concordance correlation coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients as the proportion of the variance due to participant (intertest reliability) and method (test-retest reliability). Results The two samples were homogeneous with respect to age (mean 60 +/- 14 years), eGFR (35.5 +/- 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)), male sex (53%), and diabetes (56%). Mean measured (V) over dotO(2)peak was 16.5 +/- 4 ml/kg per min. The DASI questionnaire overestimated (V) over dotO(2)peak by 4.3 ml/kg per min. Intertest reliability was 53% when eGFR was >= 35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (median) and 60% when eGFR was <35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (P<0.01). Test-retest reliability was 81% when eGFR was <35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and 71% when eGFR was >= 35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (P<0.01). Conclusions The DASI questionnaire may be a reliable measure of exercise capacity in CKD patients, especially when eGFR is <35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Larger prospective studies are needed to determine its prognostic value. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 573-580, 2012. doi: 10.2215/CJN.07990811

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据