Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32607077›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of MS care

Clinically Assessed Walking Capacity Versus Real-World Walking Performance in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

Kedar K V Mate, Nancy E Mayo

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of MS care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Kedar K V Mate
Nancy E Mayo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEcological validity is an important psychometric property when assessing function. How a person with multiple sclerosis (MS) performs in clinical settings and in natural environments can be quite different. Walking is the most frequently assessed and recommended way to maintain health in a progressive disease such as MS. The objective was to estimate the extent to which clinical tests of walking capacity differ from real-world walking performance in people with MS.

methodsNinety-eight women and 27 men with MS were assessed using the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and wore an accelerometer for 7 consecutive days. Mean number of steps, mean number of steps at a brisk cadence or faster, and cumulative time per week spent walking at a brisk cadence or faster were regressed on 6MWT categories using quantile (median) regression. Contiguous steps were grouped into bouts of less than 5 minutes and 5 minutes or longer, and number of bouts 5 minutes or longer was regressed on 6MWT categories using a zero-inflated Poisson model.

resultsA total of 869 patient-days of accelerometer data were available. Mean total number of steps per day was greater for people with higher walking capacity (6MWT distance, ≥600 m). However, this group spent a small proportion of time walking at higher cadence bands. Compared with people with 6MWT distance of at least 600 m, people walking less than 500 m had approximately half the rate of walking bouts of 5 minutes or longer. Positive mood and fewer exercise barriers predicted more walking bouts of at least 5 minutes.

conclusionsStudy participants with MS spent a small proportion of time walking at a health-promoting intensity.

Indexed as

Ecological validityMultiple sclerosis (MS)Six-Minute Walk TestWalking capacityWalking performance

Identifiers

PMID32607077
PMCPMC7307876
OpenAlexW3036514278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.