↓ Skip to main content

Which field walking test should be used to assess functional exercise capacity in lung cancer? an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Which field walking test should be used to assess functional exercise capacity in lung cancer? an observational study
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0075-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine L. Granger, Linda Denehy, Selina M. Parry, Joel Martin, Tim Dimitriadis, Maeve Sorohan, Louis Irving

Abstract

There is emerging evidence regarding the efficacy of exercise training to improve exercise capacity for individuals with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard measure of exercise capacity; however this laboratory test has limitations for use in research and clinical practice. Alternative field walking tests are the six-minute walk test (6MWT), incremental-shuttle walk test (ISWT) and endurance-shuttle walk test (ESWT); however there is limited information about their clinimetric properties in NSCLC. In NSCLC to determine the 1) criterion validity of the 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT against CPET; 2) construct validity of the 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT against measures of function, strength, respiratory function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and 3) clinical applicability of the tests. Twenty participants (40 % male, mean ± SD age 66.1 ± 6.5 years) with stage I-IIIb NSCLC completed the 6MWT, ISWT, ESWT and CPET within six months of treatment. Testing order was randomised. Additional measures included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance-Status (ECOG-PS, function), respiratory function, hand-grip dynamometry and HRQoL. Correlations and regression analyses were used to assess relationships. The ISWT demonstrated criterion validity with a moderate relationship between ISWT distance and CPET peak oxygen consumption (r = 0.61, p = 0.007). Relationships between CPET and six minute walk distance (6MWD) (r = 0.24, p = 0.329) or ESWT time (r = 0.02, p = 0.942) were poor. Moderate construct validity existed for the 6MWD and respiratory function (forced vital capacity % predicted r = 0.53, p = 0.019; forced expiratory volume in the first second % predicted r = 0.55, p = 0.015). There were no relationships between the walking tests and measures of function, strength or HRQoL. The ESWT had a ceiling effect with 18 % reaching maximum time. No floor effects were seen in the tests. The mean ± SD time required to perform the individual 6MWT, ISWT and ESWT was 12.8 ± 2.5, 14.7 ± 3.7 and 16.3 ± 5.0 min respectively; in comparison to CPET which was 51.2 ± 12.7 min. Only one assessor was required to perform all field walking tests and no adverse events occurred. The ISWT is a promising measure of functional exercise capacity in lung cancer. Findings need to be confirmed in a larger sample prior to translation into practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Other 14 8%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 42 25%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 20%
Sports and Recreations 14 8%
Psychology 4 2%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 55 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,093,879
of 24,449,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#664
of 2,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,155
of 269,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,449,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.