Impact of Test Instructions on 6-min Walk Distance in Adults With Chronic Respiratory Disease: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Christie R Mellerick, Angela T Burge, Catherine J Hill, Narelle S Cox, Janet Bondarenko, Anne E Holland
{"title":"Impact of Test Instructions on 6-min Walk Distance in Adults With Chronic Respiratory Disease: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.","authors":"Christie R Mellerick, Angela T Burge, Catherine J Hill, Narelle S Cox, Janet Bondarenko, Anne E Holland","doi":"10.1097/HCR.0000000000000836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is commonly used to assess functional exercise capacity in people with chronic respiratory disease in both clinical and research settings. However, two tests are required to achieve accurate results, due to a well-documented learning effect for the 6-min walk distance (6MWD). Whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate the learning effect by optimizing 6MWT instructions is not known.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>People with chronic respiratory disease referred to pulmonary rehabilitation undertook two 6MWT with random allocation to modified instructions ( fast -walk as fast as possible; n = 46) or usual instructions ( far -walk as far as possible; n = 49). The primary outcome was the learning effect, defined as the difference in the 6MWD between test one and test two. Subgroup analyses investigated whether effects varied in those who were naïve to the 6MWT or according to diagnosis (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, and bronchiectasis).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A learning effect was present in both groups, with a mean improvement in the 6MWD on the second test of 14 m in the fast (modified) group (95% CI, 6-22) and 11 m in the far (usual) group (95% CI, 4-19). There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between groups in the magnitude of the learning effect (between-group difference -3 m, 95% CI, -14 to 8). There was no significant effect of naivety to the 6MWT or diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current recommended procedures for the 6MWT, including standardized instructions and performance of two tests on each occasion, should be retained.</p>","PeriodicalId":15192,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000836","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is commonly used to assess functional exercise capacity in people with chronic respiratory disease in both clinical and research settings. However, two tests are required to achieve accurate results, due to a well-documented learning effect for the 6-min walk distance (6MWD). Whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate the learning effect by optimizing 6MWT instructions is not known.

Methods: People with chronic respiratory disease referred to pulmonary rehabilitation undertook two 6MWT with random allocation to modified instructions ( fast -walk as fast as possible; n = 46) or usual instructions ( far -walk as far as possible; n = 49). The primary outcome was the learning effect, defined as the difference in the 6MWD between test one and test two. Subgroup analyses investigated whether effects varied in those who were naïve to the 6MWT or according to diagnosis (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, and bronchiectasis).

Results: A learning effect was present in both groups, with a mean improvement in the 6MWD on the second test of 14 m in the fast (modified) group (95% CI, 6-22) and 11 m in the far (usual) group (95% CI, 4-19). There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between groups in the magnitude of the learning effect (between-group difference -3 m, 95% CI, -14 to 8). There was no significant effect of naivety to the 6MWT or diagnosis.

Conclusion: The current recommended procedures for the 6MWT, including standardized instructions and performance of two tests on each occasion, should be retained.

测试指导对慢性呼吸系统疾病成年人6分钟步行距离的影响:一项随机对照试验。
目的:在临床和研究环境中,6分钟步行测试(6MWT)通常用于评估慢性呼吸系统疾病患者的功能锻炼能力。然而,由于6分钟步行距离(6MWD)的学习效果有据可查,需要进行两次测试才能获得准确的结果。是否可以通过优化6MWT指令来减少或消除学习效果尚不清楚。方法:接受肺部康复治疗的慢性呼吸系统疾病患者进行了两次6MWT,随机分配到修改指令(尽可能快地快走;n=46)或常规指令(尽尽可能远地走;n=49)。主要结果是学习效果,定义为测试一和测试二之间6MWD的差异。亚组分析调查了那些对6MWT不熟悉或根据诊断(慢性阻塞性肺病、间质性肺病和支气管扩张症)的患者的效果是否不同。结果:两组都有学习效果,快速(改良)组在第二次测试中6MWD的平均改善幅度为14米(95%CI,6-22),而远(普通)组为11米(95%CI,4-19)。在学习效果的大小方面,各组之间没有统计学或临床上的显著差异(组间差异-3 m,95%CI,-14至8)。天真对6MWT或诊断没有显著影响。结论:应保留目前推荐的6MWT程序,包括标准化说明和每次两次测试的执行情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
34.20%
发文量
164
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: JCRP was the first, and remains the only, professional journal dedicated to improving multidisciplinary clinical practice and expanding research evidence specific to both cardiovascular and pulmonary rehabilitation. This includes exercise testing and prescription, behavioral medicine, and cardiopulmonary risk factor management. In 2007, JCRP expanded its scope to include primary prevention of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. JCRP publishes scientific and clinical peer-reviewed Original Investigations, Reviews, and Brief or Case Reports focused on the causes, prevention, and treatment of individuals with cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases in both a print and online-only format. Editorial features include Editorials, Invited Commentaries, Literature Updates, and Clinically-relevant Topical Updates. JCRP is the official Journal of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信