ArticleHeliyon2023
Concurrent validity and reliability of new application for 6-min walk test in healthy adults.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluation assessments for physical performance, such as walking tests, are important for measuring a person's well-being. As of current, medical technology is primarily used to administer these assessments. However, medical devices are not easily accessible and are intended for research purposes only, and hence inconvenient for clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to develop a prototype physical performance assessor device with a mobile application and explored concurrent validity and reliability between the standard 6-min walk test (6MWT) and wearable sensor 6MWT using 6-min walk distance in healthy adults. Methods: Sixty healthy males and females, above 18 years of age, were required to attach a sensor to their dominant ankle while the standard protocol for 6MWT was performed. After completing the walking test, the distance from the wearable sensor 6MWT with a mobile application and the standard 6MWT were recorded and compared. Results: There was no significant difference between the distance between the standard 6MWT (410.12 ± 74.03 m) and the distance obtained with the wearable sensor. Concurrent validity was found to be moderate, and Cronbach's alpha was 0.79, which indicated good internal consistency. Conclusion: The innovative prototype wearable walking sensor with a mobile application can effectively evaluate physical performance in healthy individuals.Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20220801002.
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.