ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2023
Reproducibility of the 6-minute walk test in lung transplant recipients.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Lifelong Physical Activity a Determinant of Lung Transplantation Outcomes?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is reason to believe that the favorable measurement properties of the 6‑minute walk test (6MWT) reported for retest reliability and its capability to detect a true change in healthy individuals or persons with chronic respiratory disease may not apply to lung transplant recipients (LuTXr). We therefore investigated retest reliability of the 6MWT and, in addition, made an attempt to explore whether the 6MWT was sensitive enough to detect important changes that occur with postacute rehabilitation in LuTXr after first time LuTX.
methodsImmediately before postacute rehabilitation, 50 LuTXr completed 6MWT testing twice, separated by 1-2 workdays (retest reliability), and were reassessed after completion of rehabilitation 2 months later (sensitivity to changes). Body function measures and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments were collected at baseline.
resultsBaseline retest 6‑minute walk distance (6MWD) and the age-related predicted walking distance (6MWD%
conclusionThe 6MWT overall represents a reliable functional performance tool in LuTXr that is sensitive to detect changes in physical performance as a result of medical postacute rehabilitation.
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.