Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35777448›Full record

Observational studyChest2022

Cardiac Effort to Compare Clinic and Remote 6-Minute Walk Testing in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.

Daniel Lachant, Ethan Kennedy, Blaise Derenze, Allison Light, Michael Lachant, R James White

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Chest, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Remote exercise assessment in pulmonary hypertension.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. 3-ERJ open research · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Physical exercise for pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis and therapy.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel LachantDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Electronic address: daniel_lachant@urmc.rochester.edu.
Ethan KennedyUniversity of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine, Biddeford, ME.
Blaise DerenzeUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Allison LightDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
Michael LachantDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
R James WhiteDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
University of Rochester Medical Center · USNew England College · USUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR001999 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI XIAO, JIN · 2016 to 2024
$5.2M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has limited objective physiologic assessments. A standardized remote alternative is not currently available. "Cardiac effort" (CE), that is, the total number of heart beats divided by the 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance (beats/m), has improved reproducibility in the 6MWT and correlated with right ventricular function in pulmonary arterial hypertension. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a chest-based accelerometer estimate 6MWT distance remotely? Is remote cardiac effort more reproducible than 6MWT distance when compared with clinic assessment? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsThis was a single-center, prospective observational study, with institutional review board approval, completed between October 2020 and April 2021. Group 1 subjects with pulmonary arterial hypertension, receiving stable therapy for > 90 days, completed four to six total 6MWTs during a 2-week period to assess reproducibility. The first and last 6MWTs were performed in the clinic; two to four remote 6MWTs were completed at each participant's discretion. Masks were not worn. BioStamp nPoint sensors (MC10) were worn on the chest to measure heart rate and accelerometry. Two blinded readers counted laps, using accelerometry data obtained on the clinic or user-defined course. Averages of clinic variables and remote variables were used for Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests, Bland-Altman plots, or Spearman correlation coefficients.

resultsEstimated 6MWT distance, using the MC10, correlated strongly with directly measured 6MWT distance (r = 0.99; P < .0001; in 20 subjects). Remote 6MWT distances were shorter than clinic 6MWT distances: 405 m (330-464 m) vs 389 m (312-430 m) (P = .002). There was no difference between in-clinic and remote CE: 1.75 beats/m (1.48-2.20 beats/m) vs 1.86 beats/m (1.57-2.14 beats/m) (P = .14).

interpretationRemote 6MWT was feasible on a user-defined course; 6MWT distance was shorter than clinic distance. CE calculated by chest heart rate and accelerometer-estimated distance provides a reproducible remote assessment of exercise tolerance, comparable to the clinic-measured value.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pulmonary Arterial HypertensionExercise TestExercise ToleranceFamilial Primary Pulmonary HypertensionHumansReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2WalkingWalk Test6-min walk testheart ratepulmonary arterial hypertensionremote

Identifiers

PMID35777448
PMCPMC9238055
OpenAlexW4283654435

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.