4.6 Article

Interpretation of treatment changes in 6-minute walk distance in patients with COPD

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 637-643

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00140507

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; exercise test; interpretation; randomised trials; 6-min walk distance

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [3233B0/115216/1]
  2. European Commission: The Human Factor, Mobility and Marie Curie Actions [IGR 42192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is uncertainty about the interpretation of changes in the 6-min walk distance (6MWD) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and whether the minimal important difference (MID) for this useful outcome measure exists. Data were used from nine trials enrolling a wide spectrum of COPD patients with 6MWD at baseline and follow-up and used to determine threshold values for important changes in 6MWD using three distribution-based methods. Anchor-based methods to determine a MID were also evaluated. Data were included of 460 COPD patients with a mean +/- SO forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 39.2 +/- 14.1% predicted and 6MWD of 361 +/- 112 m at baseline. Threshold values for important effects in 6MWD were between 29 and 42 m, respectively, using the empirical rule effect size and the standardised response mean. The threshold value was 35 m (95% confidence interval 30-42 m) based on the standard error of measurement. Correlations of 6MWD with patient-reported anchors were too low to provide meaningful MID estimates. 6-min walk distance should change by similar to 35 m for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in order to represent an important effect. This corresponds to a 10% change of baseline 6-min walk distance. The low correlations of 6-min walk distance with patient-reported anchors question whether a minimal important difference exists for the 6-min walk distance.

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