Observational analysis reveals high reliability and validity of the Londrina ADL protocol in evaluating daily living activities in IPF patients, suggesting effective rehabilitation guidance.
Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) often experience a decline in activities of daily living (ADL) due to progressive lung impairment. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate ADL performance in a way that reflects real-life challenges. This study aims to investigate the metric properties of the Londrina ADL Protocol in patients with IPF. Thirty-three patients (66.7% men, age: 66.7 ± 5.2 years) participated in this observational metric analysis study. We evaluated the protocol's validity, reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change with 95% confidence (MDC95). To assess validity, we calculated correlation coefficients between the Londrina-ADL protocol and the Glittre Test (TGlittre), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), the London Chest-ADL (LCADL) Scale, hand grip strength, knee extension strength, and respiratory functions. Intra-rater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), paired sample t-test, SEM, MDC95, and the learning effect. The Londrina-ADL protocol showed significant correlations with the TGlittre, the 6MWT, the LCADL, hand grip strength, knee extension strength, and respiratory functions (r = 0.742, r = -0.619, r = 0.665, r = -0.601, r = -0.587, p < .001, respectively.). The protocol demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.939). Test durations differed significantly between tests (p < .001). The SEM and MDC95 values were 8.69 seconds and 24.01 seconds, respectively, with a learning effect of 4.7% observed between the first and second tests. Given its strong metric properties, the Londrina-ADL protocol may serve as a practical and sensitive tool for evaluating daily functional capacity and guiding individualized rehabilitation strategies in patients with IPF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Demirbaş et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: