Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Increase in walk distance is not enough evidence to add a walk to the 6-minute walk test

N.A. Hernandes, E.F.M. Wouters, K. Meijer, J. Annegarn, F. Pitta, M.A. Spruit
European Respiratory Journal 2011 38: 1240-1241; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00120711
N.A. Hernandes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nyhernandes@gmail.com
E.F.M. Wouters
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. Meijer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Annegarn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Pitta
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.A. Spruit
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

From the authors:

H.S. Kulkarni and coworkers argue that a mean increase in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) of 27 m during a second 6-min walk test (6MWT) in 1,514 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) still does not provide enough evidence to consider performing two 6MWTs [1]. Even though we very much appreciate this correspondence, we disagree with the arguments and conclusions of H.S. Kulkarni and coworkers.

H.S. Kulkarni and coworkers state that we implied that only the result of the second 6MWT should be used. This is incorrect; we did not state this in our manuscript [1]. Indeed, 18% of the patients with COPD walked further during the first 6MWT. Moreover, the use of the best of two 6MWTs (defined as the best 6MWD) is very common in the COPD literature [2–5].

82% of our patients with COPD walked further during the second 6MWT. Indeed, the mean difference between the first and second 6MWT of 27 min is currently considered as clinically important in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD [6, 7]. Moreover, we verified, through the Bland–Altman analysis, that the limits of agreement between the first and second 6MWT largely exceed the upper limit of clinically important change [8]. Both findings support the implementation of a second 6MWT. Moreover, an improvement in 6MWD as a result of learning may be interpreted erroneously as a positive treatment; and the yearly change in 6MWD in COPD is estimated to be, on average, -26 m [9]. These are two additional strong arguments in favour of considering a second 6MWT.

H.S. Kulkarni and coworkers argue that the 6MWT should be compared with the outcomes of a cardiopulmonary cycling test, health status or symptoms. Nevertheless, the proposed outcomes may not be valid anchors for anchor-based minimal important difference estimates [10–12]. The argument of H.S. Kulkarni and coworkers that a second 6MWT is too expensive and requires too much effort seems invalid, as a 6MWT is simple and less time consuming than a formal cardiopulmonary exercise test. Moreover, we believe that the benefits of avoiding measurement error when assessing functional exercise capacity and prognosis in COPD are more relevant than the modest costs and effort required to perform a second 6MWT. In addition, reimbursement is arranged [13].

In conclusion, the 6MWT is a simple, easy and cheap test, with valuable clinical information, ignoring the fact 82% of the patients walk further during the second 6MWT can have clinical consequences, as discussed extensively in our article [1].

Footnotes

  • Statement of Interest

    None declared.

  • ©ERS 2011

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Hernandes NA,
    2. Wouters EF,
    3. Meijer K,
    4. et al
    . Reproducibility of 6-minute walking test in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2011; 38: 261–267.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Spruit MA,
    2. Wouters EF
    . New modalities of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Sports Med 2007; 37: 501–518.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Spruit MA,
    2. Gosselink R,
    3. Troosters T,
    4. et al
    . Resistance versus endurance training in patients with COPD and peripheral muscle weakness. Eur Respir J 2002; 19: 1072–1078.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pitta F,
    2. Troosters T,
    3. Probst VS,
    4. et al
    . Are patients with COPD more active after pulmonary rehabilitation?. Chest 2008; 134: 273–280.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Butland RJ,
    2. Pang J,
    3. Gross ER,
    4. et al
    . Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 284: 1607–1608.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Puhan MA,
    2. Chandra D,
    3. Mosenifar Z,
    4. et al
    . The minimal important difference of exercise tests in severe COPD. Eur Respir J 2011; 37: 784–790.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Hill CJ,
    3. Rasekaba T,
    4. et al
    . Updating the minimal important difference for six-minute walk distance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91: 221–225.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Puhan MA,
    2. Mador MJ,
    3. Held U,
    4. et al
    . Interpretation of treatment changes in 6-minute walk distance in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2008; 32: 637–643.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Pinto-Plata VM,
    2. Cote C,
    3. Cabral H,
    4. et al
    . The 6-min walk distance: change over time and value as a predictor of survival in severe COPD. Eur Respir J 2004; 23: 28–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Hill K,
    3. Alison JA,
    4. et al
    . Estimating peak work rate during incremental cycle ergometry from the 6-minute walk distance: differences between reference equations. Respiration 2011; 81: 124–128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Spruit MA,
    2. Pennings HJ,
    3. Janssen PP,
    4. et al
    . Extra-pulmonary features in COPD patients entering rehabilitation after stratification for MRC dyspnea grade. Respir Med 2007; 101: 2454–2463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Jones PW,
    2. Quirk FH,
    3. Baveystock CM
    . The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Respir Med 1991; 85: Suppl. B, 25–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Salzman SH
    . The 6-min walk test: clinical and research role, technique, coding, and reimbursement. Chest 2009; 135: 1345–1352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 38 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 38 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Increase in walk distance is not enough evidence to add a walk to the 6-minute walk test
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Increase in walk distance is not enough evidence to add a walk to the 6-minute walk test
N.A. Hernandes, E.F.M. Wouters, K. Meijer, J. Annegarn, F. Pitta, M.A. Spruit
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2011, 38 (5) 1240-1241; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00120711

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Increase in walk distance is not enough evidence to add a walk to the 6-minute walk test
N.A. Hernandes, E.F.M. Wouters, K. Meijer, J. Annegarn, F. Pitta, M.A. Spruit
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2011, 38 (5) 1240-1241; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00120711
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Lung structure and function
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Endothelial to mesenchymal transition as novel feature of pulmonary fibrosis
  • Transitioning endothelial cells contribute to pulmonary fibrosis
  • Treatable traits in ILD: why not consider acute exacerbations?
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society