4.4 Article

Six-minute walking test in children with ESRD: discrimination validity and construct validity

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 2217-2223

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-009-1259-x

关键词

Exercise capacity; Kidney disease; Muscle strength; Physical activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The six-minute walking test (6MWT) may be a practical test for the evaluation functional exercise capacity in children with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The aim of this study was to investigate the 6MWT performance in children with ESRD compared to reference values obtained in healthy children and, secondly, to study the relationship between 6MWT performance with anthropometric variables, clinical parameters, aerobic capacity and muscle strength. Twenty patients (13 boys and seven girls; mean age 14.1 +/- 3.4 years) on dialysis participated in this study. Anthropometrics were taken in a standardized manner. The 6MWT was performed in a 20-m-long track in a straight hallway. Aerobic fitness was measured using a cycle ergometer test to determine peak oxygen uptake (<(V)over dot> O-2peak) rate (W-peak) and ventilatory threshold (VT). Muscle strength was measured using hand-held myometry. Children with ESRD showed a reduced 6MWT performance (83% of predicted, p< 0.0001), irrespective of the reference values used. The strongest predictors of 6MWT performance were haematocrit and height. Regression models explained 59% (haematocrit and height) to 60% (haematocrit) of the variance in 6MWT performance. 6MWT performance was not associated with <(V)over dot> O-2peak, strength, or other anthropometric variables, but it was significantly associated with haematocrit and height. Children with ESRD scored lower on the 6MWT than healthy children. Based on these results, the 6MWT may be a useful instrument for monitoring clinical status in children with ESRD, however it cannot substitute for other fitness tests, such as a progressive exercise test to measure <(V)over dot> O-2peak or muscle strength tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据