Key result
The automated speed treadmill 6-minute walk test strongly correlated with the standard hallway test (r=0.79), although patients walked further in the hallway test (514.8m vs 447.2m; P<0.05).
Why the study?
Standard 6MWT implementation is challenged by space limitations, and treadmill-based 6MWT typically requires speed adaptation that automated sensor-based speed control might overcome.
Does the automated speed treadmill six-minute walk test provide valid and reliable functional capacity assessment compared to the standard hallway test in patients entering cardiac rehabilitation?
Observational (n=18)
Does the automated speed treadmill six-minute walk test provide valid and reliable functional capacity assessment compared to the standard hallway test in patients entering cardiac rehabilitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 447.2% vs 514.8%
p-value: p=<0.05
The automated speed treadmill 6MWT is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing functional capacity in cardiac rehabilitation, though it is not directly interchangeable with the standard hallway test.
Supports automated treadmill 6MWT validity in cardiac rehab; leaves open direct interchangeability with hallway testing.
Introduction: The six-minute walk test (6MWT) is a well-established tool for assessing submaximal functional capacity for cardiac patients, but space limitations challenge its implementation. Treadmill-based (TR) 6MWT is a promising alternative, but it requires patients to complete a familiarization test to adapt treadmill speed regulation. With the advancement of sensors, it is possible to automatically control speed for individual patients and thus overcome the space limitation or the speed control difficulty on the treadmill for each patient.Methods: This study investigated the validity and interchangeability of automated speed TR6MWT and standard hallway (HL) 6MWT. Eighteen patients were assessed at baseline of the 12-week cardiac rehabilitation program. Fourteen of them were assessed after rehabilitation. All patients performed three TR6MWTs and three HL6MWTs at baseline and one of each test after the program.Results: Patients well tolerated the TR6MWT. There was a strong correlation between both test methods (r = 0.79). However, patients performed significantly better in HL6MWT (514.8m ± 59.7m) than in TR6MWT (447.2 ± 79.1m) with 95% CI, 40.4-94.6m, p < 0.05. Both tests showed high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.86). The TR6MWT showed a valuable comparison of the effect of the cardiac rehabilitation program (20% increase, effect size 1.1) even though it is not interchangeable with the HL6MWT.Conclusion: The automated speed TR6MWT appears to be an acceptable tool with adequate validity, reliability, and responsiveness for assessing functional capacity in patients utilizing cardiac rehabilitation programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nevelikova et al. (2023) conducted an observational in cardiac patients entering exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (n=18). Automated speed treadmill six-minute walk test (TR6MWT) vs. Standard hallway six-minute walk test (HL6MWT) was evaluated on Distance walked (95% CI 40.4-94.6, p=<0.05). The automated speed treadmill 6-minute walk test strongly correlated with the standard hallway test (r=0.79), although patients walked further in the hallway test (514.8m vs 447.2m; P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: