ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
Cut-off values of 6-min walk test and sit-to-stand test for determining symptom burden in atrial fibrillation.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity, reliability and clinical utility of the Glittre ADL test in patients with atrial fibrillation.Open heart · 2026Article
- Performance on the one-minute sit-to-stand test predicts long-term adverse outcomes in pulmonary hypertension.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Early Cardiorespiratory Rehabilitation Combined With Melatonin Supplementation During the Inpatient Period After Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Pilot Study.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- Cut-points of the 6-min walk test, the six spot step test, and the timed-25-foot walk test discriminating impaired from non-impaired walking capacity in persons with Multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince symptomatology is a major predictor of quality of life and an endpoint for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF), practical approaches for objectively interpreting symptom burden and functional impairment are needed.
aimsWe aimed to provide cut-off values for two frequently used field tests to be able to objectively interpret symptom burden in atrial fibrillation.
methodsOne hundred twenty-five patients with AF were evaluated with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) score, 6-min walk test (6MWT), 30 s sit-to-stand test (30 s-STST), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF), and spirometry. Patients with EHRA 1 were classified as "asymptomatic", and those with EHRA 2-4 as "symptomatic". Cut-off values of 6MWT and 30 s-STST for discriminating between these patients were calculated.
resultsThe optimal cut-off value was "450 m" for 6MWT (sensitivity: 0.71; specificity of 0.79) and "11 repetitions" for 30 s-STST (sensitivity 0.77; specificity of 0.70). Area under ROC curve was 0.75 for both tests (p < 0.001). Discriminative properties of the two tests were similar, and they were significantly correlated (r = 0.58; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed patients below cut-off values also had worse outcomes in SF-36, IPAQ-SF, and spirometry.
conclusionsIn patients with AF, walking < 450 m in 6MWT or performing < 11 repetitions in 30 s-STST indicates increased symptom burden, as well as impaired exercise capacity, quality of life, physical activity participation, and pulmonary function. These cut-off values may help identifying patients who may require adjustments in their routine treatment or who may benefit from additional rehabilitative approaches.
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.