ArticleRespiratory care2023
Minimally Important Difference of the 20-m 6-Minute Walk Test in Individuals With COPD.
Article in Respiratory care, 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.
- Year in Review: Pulmonary Function Testing.Respiratory care · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 20-m 6-min-walk test (6MWT20) is a valid, reliable alternative for functional capacity assessment; however, its responsiveness and minimally important difference (MID) have yet to be investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness and MID of the 6MWT20 in individuals with COPD.
methodsFifty-three subjects completed the study from August 2011-March 2020. The following were assessed: lung function, activities of daily living (ADLs), functional capacity 6MWT20, dyspnea, health status, quality of life, and limitations in ADLs. The primary outcome was the 6MWT20 distance.
resultsThe study demonstrated that the 6MWT20 is responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), with an average improvement of 39 ± 36.3 m (
conclusionsThe 6MWT20 is responsive to PR, and the MID for the test is 20 m (17-47 m).
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.