The retest reliability of the six‐minute walk test in patients referred to a cardiac rehabilitation programme

Abstract

Three 6MWTs completed in relatively short timeframes were not sufficient for reliable results as there was an increase in the distance walked, and relatively large increases in distances would be required to be interpreted as change. It did not make any difference whether the tests were all completed on one day or over one week. This study highlighted problems that may arise when relying on reliability coefficients alone to interpret reliability. These results suggest that the 6MWT may not have sufficient reliability to be a suitable test to evaluate exercise tolerance in patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation.

Effect of High-Intensity Interval Versus Continuous Exercise Training on Functional Capacity and Quality of Life in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

“…We performed 2 consecutive 6MWT using a standardized protocol 15 with the better of the 2 results being recorded. This process was used before and after the exercise training programs.…”

Effect of a 6-month pedometer-based walking intervention on functional capacity in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and with preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction: study protocol for two multicenter randomized controlled trials

“…In addition, since the ATS guidelines were published, several studies suggest that the test should be duplicated at baseline and at the end of the study [37–39]. Therefore, participants will perform a “practice trial” at all assessment time points; this should refamiliarize the patients with the exercise test and produce valid and reliable results [40].…”

The Treadmill Is a Better Functional Test Than the 6-Minute Walk Test in Therapeutic Trials of Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

“…61 In contrast, in patients with heart disease, the 6-minute walk test demonstrated poor testretest reliability, as well as a placebo response and time-ofday variability. 62,63 A minimum clinically important difference has been suggested in chronic lung disease and in heart failure that defined thresholds for change in a patient-reported outcome scale, but in heart failure, this difference was the same as the variance of the test and hence the minimum detectable difference. 55,64 Thus, the test would be of marginal utility in assessing an intervention with an effect size that approximated the minimum clinically important difference.…”