Comparing two conditions of administering the six-minute walk test in people with multiple sclerosis

16Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: This quasi-experimental study was conducted to determine whether differences existed in the total distance walked and energy expended between two conditions of administering the 6-Minute Walk test (6MW) across different levels of disability in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: The sample comprised 160 individuals with MS. One group of participants (n = 82) completed a 6MW while wearing a portable metabolic unit (K4b2, Cosmed, Italy) in a square hallway with four corridors and performing 90° turns. Another group (n = 78) completed a 6MW while wearing the same metabolic unit in a single corridor and performing 180° turns. Main outcome measures included total distance walked (in feet) and oxygen consumption (in milliliters per minute) expressed as 30-second averages for 1 minute before the 6MW and over the entire 6MW. Disability status was assessed using the Patient-Determined Disease Steps scale. Results: Participants undertaking the 6MW in a single corridor (1412 ft) walked 37 ft (2.7%) farther than those undertaking the test in a square hallway (1375 ft), but this difference was not statistically significant (F = 0.45, P = .51). Those completing the 6MW in a single corridor expended more energy than those completing the 6MW in the square hallway with four corridors (F = 3.41, P < .01). Conclusions: Either protocol is acceptable, but researchers should be aware of the additional physiological demands when administering the 6MW in a single corridor with 180° turns. © 2014 Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sandroff, B. M., Pilutti, L. A., Dlugonski, D., Learmonth, Y. C., Pula, J. H., & Motl, R. W. (2014). Comparing two conditions of administering the six-minute walk test in people with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 16(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2013-014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free