Key result
The 2-minute step test demonstrated strong convergent validity with the 6-minute walk test (r=0.87) and excellent inter-rater reliability, indicating it can be used as an alternative measure of aerobic capacity in older adults post-coronary revascularisation.
Why the study?
Baseline assessment of aerobic capacity is essential in cardiac rehabilitation, but the reliability and validity of the Two-Minute Step Test in older adults post-coronary revascularisation was unknown.
Does the Two-Minute Step Test (2MST) provide a valid and reliable measure of functional capacity compared to the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) in older adults post-coronary revascularisation?
Comparison
Two-Minute Step Test vs Six-Minute Walk Test
Design
Single-centre prospective observational study
Authors
Loading...
May support 2MST as convenient 6MWT alternative post-revascularization; extends validity data but leaves confirmation to larger trials.
Observational (n=31)
Blinded raters
No
Does the Two-Minute Step Test (2MST) provide a valid and reliable measure of functional capacity compared to the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) in older adults post-coronary revascularisation?
Effect estimate: r=0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91)
p-value: p=<0.0001
The 2-minute step test is a valid and reliable alternative to the 6-minute walk test for assessing functional capacity in older adults post-coronary revascularization, though a practice trial is recommended due to a learning effect.
Chow et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Post-coronary revascularisation (n=31). 2-minute step test (2MST) vs. 6-minute walk test (6MWT) was evaluated on Convergent validity between steps achieved during the 2MSTs and the 6-minute walk distance (r=0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.91, p=<0.0001). The 2-minute step test demonstrated strong convergent validity with the 6-minute walk test (r=0.87) and excellent inter-rater reliability, indicating it can be used as an alternative measure of aerobic capacity in older adults post-coronary revascularisation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: