Observational studyChest2022
Cardiac Effort to Compare Clinic and Remote 6-Minute Walk Testing in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Portable low-flow nasal oxygen versus ambient air in patients with chronic lung disease and exercise-induced hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled crossover non-inferiority trial.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Trial
- Effect of low-flow oxygen therapy on 6 minute walk test in pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a randomized non-inferiority crossover trial.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Remote exercise assessment in pulmonary hypertension.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- 3-ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Remotely Administered Walking Tests for Assessing Functional Capacity in Patients with Chronic Pulmonary Diseases or Heart Failure: A Systematic Review of Agreement, Reliability, Feasibility and Clinical Utility.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Supplemental Oxygen Decreases Cardiac Effort in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Remote 6-Minute Walk Distance and Cardiac Effort Using Wearable Sensors in Pulmonary Hypertension.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Advances and applications of biosensors in pulmonary hypertension.Respiratory research · 2025Review
- Physical exercise for pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis and therapy.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Review
- Heart Rate Variability in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.Pulmonary circulation · 2025Article
- Risk stratification and treatment goals in pulmonary arterial hypertension.The European respiratory journal · 2024Review
- Clinical trial design, end-points, and emerging therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension.The European respiratory journal · 2024Review
- Electronically delivered rehabilitation after acute pulmonary embolism is safe and improves quality of life.The European respiratory journal · 2024Article
- In-Person Versus Remote 6-Minute Walk and Incremental Shuttle Walk Distances in Advanced Lung Disease.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Cardiac effort and 6-min walk distance correlate with stroke volume measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.Pulmonary circulation · 2024Article
- Peak steps: Capacity for activity improves after adding approved therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension.Pulmonary circulation · 2023Article
- Digital measurement of mobility in pulmonary arterial hypertension: A structured review of an emerging area.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.