Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26264470›Full record

Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2015

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

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

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03838757 (Maximal Exercise Capacity, Extra-pulmonary Characteristics and Physical Activity Levels in Patients With Lung Cancer With Complete Remission .), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03838757 completednot on this map

Maximal Exercise Capacity, Extra-pulmonary Characteristics and Physical Activity Levels in Patients With Lung Cancer With Complete Remission .

TypeobservationalSponsorGazi UniversityRan2015 to 2017Enrolled40ConditionsLung Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Survivorship Challenges and Supportive Care in Lung Cancer.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Performance Status in Cancer: Not Broken, But Time for an Upgrade?Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Exercise capacity and cancer-specific quality of life following curative intent treatment of stage I-IIIA lung cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. The Utility of Exercise Testing in Patients with Lung Cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2016
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine L GrangerDepartment of Physiotherapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. catherine.granger@unimelb.edu.au.
Linda DenehyDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, 161 Barry Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. linda.denehy@unimelb.edu.au.
Selina M ParryDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, 161 Barry Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. selina.parry@unimelb.edu.au.
Joel MartinDepartment of Physiotherapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. joelmartin39@gmail.com.
Tim DimitriadisDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. tim.dimitriadis@mh.org.au.
Maeve SorohanDepartment of Physiotherapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. maeve_or19@hotmail.co.
Louis IrvingDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, Australia. louis.irving@mh.org.au.
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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.

aimsIn 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.

methodsTwenty 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungExercise TestExercise ToleranceFemaleFollow-Up StudiesForced Expiratory VolumeHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleOxygen ConsumptionProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsWalking

Identifiers

PMID26264470
PMCPMC4534028
OpenAlexW1896160019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.