Reproducibility of Ventilatory Parameters, Dynamic Hyperinflation, and Performance in the Glittre-ADL Test in COPD Patients

Santos, Karoliny dos; Gulart, Aline Almeida; Munari, Anelise Bauer; Cani, Katerine Cristhine; Mayer, Anamaria Fleig

doi:10.1080/15412555.2016.1177007

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…26 The reliability and learning effect of TGlittre had also been investigated in previous studies, which demonstrated results similar to ours (ICC 0.95---0.97; learning effect: 6.3---7.6%). 10,12,13 Meanwhile, our study was the first to demonstrate that the learning effect of TGlittre after PRP was about 40% lower than the baseline learning effect. In other words, to perform only one test can overestimate the effects of PRP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…In this context, there is the Glittre ADL-test (TGlittre), which is composed by multiple tasks common in daily life, developed, and validated specifically for patients with COPD. 10,11 It is valid 10 and reliable for assessing the functional capacity of clinically stable patients 10,12,13 and hospitalized patients. 14 TGlittre is responsive to PRP 10 and it is able to differentiate the functional capacity of patients with COPD from healthy individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The minimal important difference for Glittre-ADL test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Gulart

Araújo

Munari

et al. 2020

Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine Glittre-ADL test minimal important difference in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: This is quasi-experimental study. Sixty patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (age 64.1, SD = 9.09 years; forced expiratory volume in the first second 37.9, SD = 13.0% predicted participated in a pulmonary rehabilitation program based on physical training, conducted over 24 sessions supervised, three times a week, including aerobic training in treadmill and resistance training for upper limbs and lower limbs. The main outcomes were the Glittre-ADL test and six-minute walk test, before and after 24 sessions of pulmonary rehabilitation. The minimal important difference was established using the distribution and anchor-based methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The minimal important difference for Glittre-ADL test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Gulart

Araújo

Munari

et al. 2020

Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[29][30][31] Performing a second test gives patients the opportunity to be familiar with the task, and feeling more secure may lead to improved performance. This behavior is common in other functional tests, 11,13 such as the 6-min walk test, in which patients with a greater dyspnea in the first test are better able to control it, reducing this sensation on the second test and being more likely to improve performance. 32 Although only a trend of correlation was found between the number of steps on the 6MST 1 and its variation on the 6MST 2 in the total sample, the Bland-Altman plot (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Studies that aimed to evaluate reproducibility of other functional tests, such as the 6MWT and the Glittre ADL-test, verified a mean percentage difference in performance similar to what we noted in this study, suggesting the presence of a learning effect and therefore the value in performing 2 tests. 11,26 We also identified that the mean difference between 6MST 2 and 6MST 1 was below the MDC and that only 5 subjects showed a difference above the MDC. Given that the MDC reflects the smallest change in the outcome of the instrument that can be considered as a real difference, 24,27 the reliability and responsiveness of the instrument would be compromised if the mean of the difference exceeded MDC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…7 There may be a reduction in the number and duration of interruptions as well as an improvement in performance on the second 6MST, as the patients become familiar with the test and may feel more comfortable to conduct it. In addition, subjects with greater functional limitations have a stronger learning effect in field tests, [11][12][13] although there is no evidence of this outcome for the 6MST. This would justify a second test, especially in these patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reproducibility of the 6-Min Step Test in Subjects With COPD

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Test-retest reproducibility of the 6-min step test (6MST) is controversial in patients with COPD because the decision to perform a second test is influenced by interruptions, physiological overload, and the patient's exercise tolerance. The aim of this study was to analyze the reproducibility of performance on the 6MST (ie, number of steps climbed and interruptions) and physiological variables in subjects with COPD, with and without poor exercise tolerance, and with and without interruptions during the test. METHODS: Subjects performed 2 6MST (6MST 1 , 6MST 2) with a minimum of 30 min rest between tests. Physiological variables were assessed with a gas analyzer. Subjects who performed^78 steps in the 6MST 1 and^86 steps in the test with the higher number of steps performed (6MST BEST) were considered to have poor exercise tolerance. Subjects were also stratified according to those who interrupted the 6MST BEST and those who did not interrupt the 6MST BEST. RESULTS: 40 subjects (31 men; FEV 1 percent of predicted 5 50.4 6 13.5) participated in the study. The number of steps, interruptions, and physiological variables showed moderate to high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70-0.99, P < .001). Thirty-one (77.5%) subjects had a better performance during 6MST 2 than 6MST 1 (mean difference: 4.65 6 5.59, P < .001). Although the number of times subjects were interrupted was similar between the 2 tests (P 5 .66), the duration of these interruptions was shorter during 6MST 2 (mean difference:-0.12 6 0.39 s, P 5 .040). The difference in the number of steps (6MST 2 2 6MST 1) did not differ between subjects who performed^78 steps (mean difference: 5.64 6 5.32 steps; 10.3%; P < 0.001) and 6 79 steps (3.00 6 5.82 steps; 6.13%; P 5 0.08) on the 6MST 1 (P 5 0.15) and between subjects who performed 86 steps (5.39 6 5.14 steps; 9.39%; P < 0.001) and 6 87 steps (2.92 6 6.43 steps; 2.74%; P 5 0.14) steps on the 6MST BEST (P 5 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Performance and physiological variables in the 6MST were reproducible, and a second test did not impose greater physiological overload. Two tests were essential for patients with poor exercise tolerance. Key words: COPD; activities of daily living; data accuracy; exercise; oxygen consumption; reproducibility of results.

show abstract

Patient-Centered Outcomes

Furlanetto

Hernandes

Pitta

2017

Textbook of Pulmonary Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducibility of Ventilatory Parameters, Dynamic Hyperinflation, and Performance in the Glittre-ADL Test in COPD Patients

Abstract: The TGlittre time and ventilatory parameters are reproducible, while DH is variable in COPD patients. A 6-7% learning effect was shown, and it is recommended to perform two tests.

Cited by 18 publications

References 27 publications

The minimal important difference for Glittre-ADL test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The minimal important difference for Glittre-ADL test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Reproducibility of the 6-Min Step Test in Subjects With COPD

Patient-Centered Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About