ArticleNeuroRehabilitation2019
The 2-minute walk test is not a valid method to determine aerobic capacity in persons with Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in NeuroRehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Motor Imagery on Motor Recovery in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Feasibility and efficacy of real-time teleresistance exercise programs for physical function in elderly patients after hip fracture surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2025Trial
- The 2-Minutes Walking Test Is Not Correlated with Aerobic Fitness Indices but with the 5-Times Sit-to-Stand Test Performance in Apparently Healthy Older Adults.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Incongruence between Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Subjective Reports of Physical Activity in Multiple Sclerosis: A Focus on Sex Differences.Multiple sclerosis international · 2024Article
- Functional Capacity of Noninstitutionalized Older Adults from Northwest Mexico: Reference Values.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWalking tests, like the 2-minute fast walk test, are simple, inexpensive performance-based tests, and therefore seem attractive to estimate the aerobic fitness in people with chronic diseases.
objectiveTo determine the criterion validity of the 2-minute fast walk test for estimating aerobic capacity in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), by comparing it with the peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak in mL/kg/min) as measured by Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing (CPET) on a cycle ergometer.
methodsThe 2 min fast walk test was performed on a marked indoor trajectory, using a static start protocol. Aerobic capacity (VO2peak, in mL/kg/min) was derived from CPET on a cycle ergometer. Criterion validity was tested by means of Pearson's correlation coefficient and should be at least 0.70 for a good criterion validity of the 2 min walk test. Linear regression analysis was applied to more precisely estimate VO2peak.
resultsIn total 141 people with severe MS-related fatigue (mean age 47.0 years (range 23-68 years), 73% women, median disease duration 7.8 years (range 0.3 - 28.7 years)) performed both tests. The distance walked in two minutes ranged from 52.0 to 290.0 m (mean 175.1 m, sd 44.9 m), while the VO2peak varied between 11.31 and 40.28 mL/kg/min (mean 22.52 mL/kg/min, sd 6.07 mL/kg/min). The correlation between the 2 min walk test and VO2peak was 0.441 (95% CI: 0.309-0.570). The absolute residual error in estimated VO2peak was 5.47 mL/kg/min.
conclusionsDue to the poor correlation found between the 2 min walk test and VO2peak, the 2-min walk test cannot be recommended as a valid alternative for estimating aerobic capacity in persons with MS.
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.