Why the study?
Does a second 6-minute walking test on a subsequent day show a learning effect compared to the first test in patients with COPD?
Does a second 6-minute walking test on a subsequent day show a learning effect compared to the first test in patients with COPD?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
While the 6MWT is highly reproducible in COPD patients, a significant learning effect of 27 m exists on the second test, which may be clinically relevant.
The reproducibility of the 6-min walking test (6MWT) needs to be more solidly studied. This study aimed to investigate the reproducibility of two 6MWTs performed on subsequent days in a large and representative sample of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and to quantify the learning effect between the two tests, as well as its determinants. In a retrospective observational study, 1,514 patients with COPD performed two 6MWTs on subsequent days. Other measurements included body composition (dual X-ray absorptiometry), dyspnoea (Medical Research Council scale) and comorbidity (Charlson index). Although the 6MWT was reproducible (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93), patients walked farther in the second test (391 m, 95% CI 155-585 m versus 418 m, 95% CI 185-605 m; p<0.0001). On average, the second 6MWT increased by 27 m (or 7%), and 82% of patients improved in the second test. Determinants of improvement ≥ 42 m in the second test (upper limit of the clinically important change) were as follows: first 6MWT <350 m, Charlson index <2 and body mass index <30 kg · m(-2) (OR 2.49, 0.76 and 0.60, respectively). The 6MWT was statistically reproducible in a representative sample of patients with COPD. However, the vast majority of patients improved significantly in the second test by an average learning effect of 27 m.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hernandes et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: