4.6 Review

An official systematic review of the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society: measurement properties of field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 1447-1478

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00150414

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Respiratory Society
  2. American Thoracic Society
  3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands (CLAHRC EM)
  4. NIHR Leicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review examined the measurement properties of the 6-min walk test (6MWT), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) in adults with chronic respiratory disease. Studies that report the evaluation or use of the 6MWT, ISWT or ESWT were included. We searched electronic databases for studies published between January 2000 and September 2013. The 6-min walking distance (6MWD) is a reliable measure (intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.99 in seven studies). There is a learning effect, with greater distance walked on the second test (pooled mean improvement of 26 m in 13 studies). Reliability was similar for ISWT and ESWT, with a learning effect also evident for ISWT (pooled mean improvement of 20 m in six studies). The 6MWD correlates more strongly with peak work capacity (r=0.59-0.93) and physical activity (r=0.40-0.85) than with respiratory function (r=0.10-0.59). Methodological factors affecting 6MWD include track length, encouragement, supplemental oxygen and walking aids. Supplemental oxygen also affects ISWT and ESWT performance. Responsiveness was moderate to high for all tests, with greater responsiveness to interventions that included exercise training. The findings of this review demonstrate that the 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT are robust tests of functional exercise capacity in adults with chronic respiratory disease.

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