6 分钟台阶试验的程序和测量特性:系统回顾与临床建议。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-04 DOI:10.1177/02692155241229286
Augusto Boening, Aline A Scianni, Janayna A Martins, Cintia H Santuzzi, Fernanda Mg Liberato, Lucas R Nascimento
{"title":"6 分钟台阶试验的程序和测量特性:系统回顾与临床建议。","authors":"Augusto Boening, Aline A Scianni, Janayna A Martins, Cintia H Santuzzi, Fernanda Mg Liberato, Lucas R Nascimento","doi":"10.1177/02692155241229286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide information regarding the procedures, safety, tolerability, and measurement properties of the 6-min step test.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus (from inception until January 2024).</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Studies that examined adults with acute or chronic diseases, and outcomes related to procedures, safety, tolerability, or measurement properties of the 6-min step test were included. Outcome data were summarized and combined in meta-analyses. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist, and the quality of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies, involving 847 participants, were included. All studies performed the 6-min step test in 6 min; however, some studies varied the step height and the use of upper limb support. The test appears to be safe and well tolerated by individuals. Moderate- to high-quality evidence demonstrated appropriate results for test-retest reliability (4 studies; Intraclass correlation coefficient 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-0.98; <i>n</i> = 125), criterion validity (4 studies; <i>r</i> = 0.53; 95% CI 0.30-0.71; <i>n</i> = 307), and construct validity (4 studies; <i>r</i> = 0.63; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; <i>n</i> = 233).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides recommendations for applying the 6-min step test in clinical and research settings. No adverse events were reported, and the test appears to be well tolerated. Adequate results were found for test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and construct validity.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42022347744).</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"647-663"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Procedures and measurement properties of the 6-min step test: A systematic review with clinical recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Augusto Boening, Aline A Scianni, Janayna A Martins, Cintia H Santuzzi, Fernanda Mg Liberato, Lucas R Nascimento\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02692155241229286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide information regarding the procedures, safety, tolerability, and measurement properties of the 6-min step test.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus (from inception until January 2024).</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Studies that examined adults with acute or chronic diseases, and outcomes related to procedures, safety, tolerability, or measurement properties of the 6-min step test were included. Outcome data were summarized and combined in meta-analyses. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist, and the quality of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies, involving 847 participants, were included. All studies performed the 6-min step test in 6 min; however, some studies varied the step height and the use of upper limb support. The test appears to be safe and well tolerated by individuals. Moderate- to high-quality evidence demonstrated appropriate results for test-retest reliability (4 studies; Intraclass correlation coefficient 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-0.98; <i>n</i> = 125), criterion validity (4 studies; <i>r</i> = 0.53; 95% CI 0.30-0.71; <i>n</i> = 307), and construct validity (4 studies; <i>r</i> = 0.63; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; <i>n</i> = 233).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides recommendations for applying the 6-min step test in clinical and research settings. No adverse events were reported, and the test appears to be well tolerated. Adequate results were found for test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and construct validity.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42022347744).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"647-663\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241229286\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241229286","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:提供有关 6 分钟台阶试验的程序、安全性、耐受性和测量特性的信息:提供有关 6 分钟台阶试验的程序、安全性、耐受性和测量特性的信息:MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 SPORTDiscus(从开始到 2024 年 1 月):综述方法:纳入对患有急性或慢性疾病的成人以及与 6 分钟台阶试验的程序、安全性、耐受性或测量特性相关的结果进行研究的研究。对结果数据进行总结并合并成荟萃分析。纳入研究的质量根据基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准核对表进行评估,证据质量根据建议分级评估、开发和评价系统确定:结果:共纳入 14 项研究,涉及 847 名参与者。所有研究都在 6 分钟内进行了 6 分钟台阶测试;但是,一些研究改变了台阶高度和上肢支撑的使用。该测试似乎是安全的,个人的耐受性也很好。中度到高质量的证据显示,测试重复可靠性(4 项研究;类内相关系数 0.96;95% CI 0.91-0.98;n = 125)、标准效度(4 项研究;r = 0.53;95% CI 0.30-0.71;n = 307)和构建效度(4 项研究;r = 0.63;95% CI 0.52-0.73;n = 233)的结果适当:本综述为在临床和研究环境中应用 6 分钟台阶试验提供了建议。没有不良事件的报道,测试的耐受性良好。综述注册:prospero(CRD42022347744)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Procedures and measurement properties of the 6-min step test: A systematic review with clinical recommendations.

Objective: To provide information regarding the procedures, safety, tolerability, and measurement properties of the 6-min step test.

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus (from inception until January 2024).

Review methods: Studies that examined adults with acute or chronic diseases, and outcomes related to procedures, safety, tolerability, or measurement properties of the 6-min step test were included. Outcome data were summarized and combined in meta-analyses. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist, and the quality of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

Results: Fourteen studies, involving 847 participants, were included. All studies performed the 6-min step test in 6 min; however, some studies varied the step height and the use of upper limb support. The test appears to be safe and well tolerated by individuals. Moderate- to high-quality evidence demonstrated appropriate results for test-retest reliability (4 studies; Intraclass correlation coefficient 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-0.98; n = 125), criterion validity (4 studies; r = 0.53; 95% CI 0.30-0.71; n = 307), and construct validity (4 studies; r = 0.63; 95% CI 0.52-0.73; n = 233).

Conclusion: This review provides recommendations for applying the 6-min step test in clinical and research settings. No adverse events were reported, and the test appears to be well tolerated. Adequate results were found for test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and construct validity.

Review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022347744).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review. Effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment associated with transcranial direct current stimulation in individuals with chronic low back pain: A double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training with physical therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prognostic factors of pain, disability, and poor outcomes in persons with neck pain - an umbrella review. Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1