Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Importance The minimum important difference (MID) for field walking tests aims to improve interpretation of outcomes, but the volume and heterogeneity of MIDs for these tests is challenging. We aimed to determine the MID for the 6-min walk distance (6MWD), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and en...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
European Respiratory Society
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | European Respiratory Review |
| Online Access: | http://err.ersjournals.com/content/34/176/240198.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849710783927156736 |
|---|---|
| author | Enya Daynes Ruth E. Barker Amy V. Jones Jessica A. Walsh Claire M. Nolan William D-C. Man Sally J. Singh Neil J. Greening Linzy Houchen-Wolloff Rachael A. Evans |
| author_facet | Enya Daynes Ruth E. Barker Amy V. Jones Jessica A. Walsh Claire M. Nolan William D-C. Man Sally J. Singh Neil J. Greening Linzy Houchen-Wolloff Rachael A. Evans |
| author_sort | Enya Daynes |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Importance
The minimum important difference (MID) for field walking tests aims to improve interpretation of outcomes, but the volume and heterogeneity of MIDs for these tests is challenging. We aimed to determine the MID for the 6-min walk distance (6MWD), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) in adults with long-term conditions.
Methods
This systematic review included studies that generated a MID using an anchor-based approach in patients with long-term conditions for the 6MWD, ISWT or ESWT field walking tests. Studies were screened and data extracted by independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan.
Results
42 studies were included in the analyses, involving n=13 949 participants. Of these, 12 studies involving exercise as an intervention were included in the meta-analyses to produce MIDs, presented as mean (95% confidence interval). The MID for the 6MWD was 25 m (24–26 m) for respiratory conditions, 23 m (8–37 m) for cardiac conditions and 37 m (26–49 m) for neurological/musculoskeletal conditions. The MID for the ISWT was 48 m (39–57 m) for respiratory conditions and 70 m (55–85 m) for cardiac conditions. The MID for ESWT in COPD was 159 s (94–224 s). The pooled MID across conditions within exercise interventions was 26 m (22–40 m) for the 6MWD and 53 m (44–62 m) for the ISWT, with reasonable heterogeneity (I2=48% and I2=47%, respectively).
Conclusion
We propose new MIDs for exercise interventions using anchor-based methodology in long‑term conditions for the 6MWD, ISWT and ESWT. These can be used internationally for meta‑analyses where studies have used different field walking tests, to optimise trial sample size calculations, and for clinical service benchmarking. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a56048e481ed4b3fb0817cda8ce2ea82 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 0905-9180 1600-0617 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | European Respiratory Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Respiratory Review |
| spelling | doaj-art-a56048e481ed4b3fb0817cda8ce2ea822025-08-20T03:14:49ZengEuropean Respiratory SocietyEuropean Respiratory Review0905-91801600-06172025-05-013417610.1183/16000617.0198-20240198-2024Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysisEnya Daynes0Ruth E. Barker1Amy V. Jones2Jessica A. Walsh3Claire M. Nolan4William D-C. Man5Sally J. Singh6Neil J. Greening7Linzy Houchen-Wolloff8Rachael A. Evans9 Centre of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre–Respiratory, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Centre of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre–Respiratory, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Centre of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre–Respiratory, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK Centre of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre–Respiratory, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK Centre of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre–Respiratory, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK Centre of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre–Respiratory, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK Importance The minimum important difference (MID) for field walking tests aims to improve interpretation of outcomes, but the volume and heterogeneity of MIDs for these tests is challenging. We aimed to determine the MID for the 6-min walk distance (6MWD), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) in adults with long-term conditions. Methods This systematic review included studies that generated a MID using an anchor-based approach in patients with long-term conditions for the 6MWD, ISWT or ESWT field walking tests. Studies were screened and data extracted by independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan. Results 42 studies were included in the analyses, involving n=13 949 participants. Of these, 12 studies involving exercise as an intervention were included in the meta-analyses to produce MIDs, presented as mean (95% confidence interval). The MID for the 6MWD was 25 m (24–26 m) for respiratory conditions, 23 m (8–37 m) for cardiac conditions and 37 m (26–49 m) for neurological/musculoskeletal conditions. The MID for the ISWT was 48 m (39–57 m) for respiratory conditions and 70 m (55–85 m) for cardiac conditions. The MID for ESWT in COPD was 159 s (94–224 s). The pooled MID across conditions within exercise interventions was 26 m (22–40 m) for the 6MWD and 53 m (44–62 m) for the ISWT, with reasonable heterogeneity (I2=48% and I2=47%, respectively). Conclusion We propose new MIDs for exercise interventions using anchor-based methodology in long‑term conditions for the 6MWD, ISWT and ESWT. These can be used internationally for meta‑analyses where studies have used different field walking tests, to optimise trial sample size calculations, and for clinical service benchmarking.http://err.ersjournals.com/content/34/176/240198.full |
| spellingShingle | Enya Daynes Ruth E. Barker Amy V. Jones Jessica A. Walsh Claire M. Nolan William D-C. Man Sally J. Singh Neil J. Greening Linzy Houchen-Wolloff Rachael A. Evans Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis European Respiratory Review |
| title | Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_full | Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_short | Determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long–term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_sort | determining the minimum important differences for field walking tests in adults with long term conditions a systematic review and meta analysis |
| url | http://err.ersjournals.com/content/34/176/240198.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT enyadaynes determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ruthebarker determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT amyvjones determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT jessicaawalsh determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT clairemnolan determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT williamdcman determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT sallyjsingh determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT neiljgreening determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT linzyhouchenwolloff determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT rachaelaevans determiningtheminimumimportantdifferencesforfieldwalkingtestsinadultswithlongtermconditionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |