Christie R Mellerick, Angela T Burge, Catherine J Hill, Narelle S Cox, Janet Bondarenko, Anne E Holland
{"title":"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。","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":" ","pages":"49-54"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"49-54\"},\"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}","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}
Impact of Test Instructions on 6-min Walk Distance in Adults With Chronic Respiratory Disease: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.
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.
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.