2003
DOI: 10.1191/0269215503cr626oa
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The validity of patient and physician estimates of walking distance

Abstract: Neither patients nor physicians provide valid estimates of maximal walking distance. Patients consistently overestimate their maximal walking distance, whereas physicians tend to underestimate. Interestingly, patients' estimates (although over inflated) do correlate well with actual walking distance, while physician estimates are not at all correlated. This study suggests that reliance on self-reported or physician-estimated maximum walking distances (whether for clinical, research or other reasons) is potenti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
25
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
3
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Watson et al [11] studied the reliability of distance estimations of claudicants and vascular surgeons, finding that both groups lack accuracy with median overestimates of 52 and 34%, respectively. A more recent study by Giantomaso et al [4] confirmed the findings of earlier studies but also inferred that patients consistently overestimate their maximal walking distance, whereas physicians tend to underestimate. The study also found that patient's estimates (though over-estimated) do correlate well with actual walking distance, whereas physician estimates are not at all correlated [4].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Watson et al [11] studied the reliability of distance estimations of claudicants and vascular surgeons, finding that both groups lack accuracy with median overestimates of 52 and 34%, respectively. A more recent study by Giantomaso et al [4] confirmed the findings of earlier studies but also inferred that patients consistently overestimate their maximal walking distance, whereas physicians tend to underestimate. The study also found that patient's estimates (though over-estimated) do correlate well with actual walking distance, whereas physician estimates are not at all correlated [4].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…A more recent study by Giantomaso et al [4] confirmed the findings of earlier studies but also inferred that patients consistently overestimate their maximal walking distance, whereas physicians tend to underestimate. The study also found that patient's estimates (though over-estimated) do correlate well with actual walking distance, whereas physician estimates are not at all correlated [4]. This study only looked at patient estimates of distance perception.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…[13] Questionnaire-based assessments, however, have the drawback that they depend on the accuracy of the patient's perception, cognition and communication. [14,15] Performance-based or laboratory-based measures involve direct therapist or researcher observation and grading of the patient's physical activity level. [14] One of the potential disadvantages of such performance-based measures is that they may capture best performance at a single point in time rather than usual, daily performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although in Study III, correlation was observed between leg and back pain and groups of predesignated walking distances, Figure 18, SEWD is known to be notoriously inaccurate (Sharrack and Hughes 1997;Watson et al 1997;Giantomaso et al 2003;Okoro et al 2010). The inaccuracy of the SEMD increases with patient age (Okoro et al 2010).…”
Section: Limiting the Effect Of Biasmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…In the Swespine protocol patients are asked to categorize their walking distance in one of four different categories, (1) <100 m, (2) 100-500 m, (3) 500-1000 m, and (4) >1000 m. Severly reduced walking ability is thus assigned the number 1 and good walking ability as the number 4. Despite being an important measure of disability, studies have shown discrepancies between perceived patient and physician estimated walking distances and measured distances (Giantomaso et al 2003;Okoro et al 2010). A study supporting the use of self-reported measures of walking capacity showed subjects who were able to walk their maximum distance tended to underestimate their actual walking capacity (Tomkins-Lane and Battié 2010).…”
Section: Self-estimated Walking Distance (Sewd)mentioning
confidence: 99%