Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30992662›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2019

The six-minute stepper test is related to muscle strength but cannot substitute for the one repetition maximum to prescribe strength training in patients with COPD.

Tristan Bonnevie, Mathilde Allingham, Guillaume Prieur, Yann Combret, David Debeaumont, Maxime Patout, Antoine Cuvelier, Catherine Viacroze, Jean-François Muir, Clement Medrinal and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

11 authors.

Tristan BonnevieNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.
Mathilde AllinghamRouen University Hospital, School of Physiotherapy, Rouen, France.
Guillaume PrieurNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.
Yann CombretInstitute of Experimental and Clinical Research (IREC), Pole of Pulmonology, ORL and Dermatology, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
David DebeaumontDepartment of Respiratory and Exercise Physiology and CIC-CRB 1404, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Maxime PatoutNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.
Antoine CuvelierNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.
Catherine ViacrozePulmonary, Thoracic Oncology and Respiratory Intensive Care Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Jean-François MuirNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.
Clement MedrinalNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.
Francis-Edouard GravierNormandie University, UNIROUEN, UPRES EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Rouen, France, rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: There are many barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation, including a limited access to evaluation centers. To cope with these difficulties, field tests are often used to prescribe endurance training. As field tests are related to muscle strength, they could also be used to prescribe strength training and increase the access to pulmonary rehabilitation in rural area. However, their validity for this purpose has never been studied. Patients and methods: The relationship between the 6-minute stepper test (6MST), 6-minute walk test, maximal workload achieved during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (Wpeak), and one repetition maximum (1RM) was assessed in 35 patients with COPD through a retrospective chart review to derive predictive equation of the 1RM from these tests. The effectiveness of these equations to prescribe strength training at 70% of the 1RM was assessed in an independent cross-validation group of 34 patients with COPD. Results: There was a moderate relationship between the 6MST, Wpeak and the 1RM ( Conclusion: The use of the 6MST and Wpeak for the prescription of strength training would result in a clinically not acceptable error. Therefore, they should not be used as a substitute for the 1RM to prescribe strength training.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthResistance TrainingWalk TestAgedClinical Decision-MakingExercise TestExercise ToleranceFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPredictive Value of TestsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuadriceps MuscleCOPDpulmonary rehabilitationsix-minute stepper teststrength training

Identifiers

PMID30992662
PMCPMC6445245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.