Why the study?
Does long distance corridor walk time associate with subclinical cardiovascular disease measures in postmenopausal women?
Cross-Sectional (n=492)
Does long distance corridor walk time associate with subclinical cardiovascular disease measures in postmenopausal women?
p-value: P<002 and P<.001
The long distance corridor walk test may serve as a useful clinical tool to identify postmenopausal women at higher risk for subclinical cardiovascular disease who may benefit from further testing or lifestyle intervention.
May flag subclinical CVD risk in postmenopausal women; leaves open whether walk time predicts events or guides interventions.
An objective measure of walking performance could have several potential applications in clinical settings. The cross-sectional relationships among long distance corridor walk (LDCW) time, physical activity, and subclinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) measures were examined before group randomization in 492 participants (mean age, 57.0+/-2.9 years) from the Women On the Move Through Activity and Nutrition (WOMAN) study, a randomized clinical trial involving postmenopausal women. Longer walk times were significantly associated with higher body mass index (P<0001), average waist circumference (P<0001), and lower levels of physical activity (P<002). The proportion of detectable coronary artery calcification and median aortic pulse wave velocity levels were significantly higher among those with slower walk times (P<002 and P<.001, respectively). Findings from the current report support the utility of the LDCW to identify women at higher risk for CVD who may be candidates for further cardiovascular testing or intensive lifestyle intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pettee et al. (2007) conducted a cross-sectional in Subclinical cardiovascular disease (n=492). Long distance corridor walk (LDCW) time vs. Faster walk times was evaluated on Detectable coronary artery calcification and median aortic pulse wave velocity (p=P<002 and P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: