4.4 Article

Comparison of the 6-minute walk distance test performed on a non-motorised treadmill and in a corridor in healthy elderly subjects

期刊

PHYSIOTHERAPY
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 234-239

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2009.11.015

关键词

Exercise test; 6MWD; Treadmill; Rehabilitation

资金

  1. Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To compare the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test performed on a non-motorised treadmill (6MWD-T) with the 6MWD test performed in a corridor (6MWD-C) in healthy elderly subjects. Participants Sixteen healthy elderly individuals. Design Participants performed three 6MWD-T tests and three 6MWD-C tests on two different days. Outcome measures Distance walked was recorded in metres. Perceived exertion and leg fatigue were rated on the modified Borg scale before and after each test. Results Using the Bland and Altman limits of agreement analysis method, the mean difference between the two methods was 153.3 m (limits of agreement: 28 to 278). The mean difference between days 1 and 2 for the 6MWD-C test was -7.2 m (limits of agreement: -45.4 to 30.8), and the mean difference between days 1 and 2 for the 6MWD-T test was -1.6 m (limits of agreement: -64.0 to 60.7). The mean difference between the first and second repetitions of the 6MWD-C test was -5 m (limits of agreement: -41 to 31), and the mean difference between the first and second repetitions of the 6MWD-T test was -17 m (limits of agreement: -85 to 51). Conclusions The 6MWD-C and 6MWD-T tests are not interchangeable. However, the results showed good test-retest reliability between days and between test repetitions for both tests. Therefore, the 6MWD-T test may offer an alternative option to the 6MWD-C test when a 30-m corridor is not available. These findings may have implications for execution of the 6MWT-T test within cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. (C) 2010 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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