ArticlePloS one2019
Ecological validity of walking capacity tests following rehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of a cooling vest with sham condition on walking capacity in heat-sensitive people with Multiple Sclerosis.European journal of applied physiology · 2020Trial
- Effects of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation on everyday life physical activity and gait in patients with multiple sclerosis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Intermediate outcomes for clinical trials of multiple sclerosis rehabilitation interventions: Conceptual and practical considerations.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2023Review
- Wearable Sensor Technologies to Assess Motor Functions in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Scoping Review and Perspective.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Methodological heterogeneity biases physical activity metrics derived from the Actigraph GT3X in multiple sclerosis: A rapid review and comparative study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
- Making Every Step Count: Minute-by-Minute Characterization of Step Counts Augments Remote Activity Monitoring in People With Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWalking capacity tests are commonly used to evaluate interventions aiming at reducing walking impairment in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). However, their ecological validity has recently been questioned. The aim of the present study was to investigate the ecological validity of the 2- and 6-minutes walking tests (2MWT and 6MWT) and the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) after 28 days of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation (MIR) in pwMS using accelerometry.
methodsPwMS wore an accelerometer on 7 consecutive days within a 14-day period prior to MIR, performed 2/6MWT and T25FW at the beginning and at the end of MIR, followed by another 7 consecutive days of accelerometry.
resultsSignificant improvements in 2/6MWT and T25FW after MIR in a cohort of 76 pwMS (mean age = 47.9, SD 8.3 years) were overall correlated to a significant gain in everyday life mobility (total steps/day). However, the correlation was strongly dependent on pre-existing walking disability defined by EDSS and only pwMS with "mild" walking impairment (EDSS 2-3.5) were able to transfer benefits measurable by walking capacity tests into improved everyday life mobility, while pwMS with "moderate to severe" walking disability (EDSS 4-6.5) were not.
conclusionEcological validity of changes in walking capacity tests following MIR is strongly dependent on pre-existing walking impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.