ArticlePhysical therapy2025
Clinical Assessment of Walking Capacity in People With Parkinson Disease: Are 2 Minutes Sufficient?
Article in Physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective analysis of falls in Parkinson's disease: Does physical capacity moderate the relationship between walking amount and falls rates?Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Hip exoskeleton assistance with machine-learning-based state estimation improves gait kinematics of people with Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Comparing the Informative Value of 2-Minute Segments of the 6-Minute Walk Test: Insights into a Prospective Study on Parkinson's Disease.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effects of remote Baduanjin Qigong intervention on quality of life and physical function in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease: a protocol of randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWalking capacity progressively declines in people with Parkinson disease (PD), and assessment of walking is imperative for monitoring disease progression and evaluating intervention efficacy. The main aim of this study was to explore whether the 2-minute walk test (2MWT) could be substituted for the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) as a measure of walking capacity in people with PD. We also sought to investigate construct and known-groups validity of the 2MWT.
methodsA cross-sectional analysis based on data from the Supported Home Training in Everyday Life for Parkinson Disease trial was conducted in a hospital setting. Sixty-three people with idiopathic, mild to moderate PD (29 women; mean age = 69.2 years) were included. Spatiotemporal gait parameters during the 2MWT and the 6MWT were captured by wearable sensors. Linear regression was used to analyze the association between distances walked, whereas paired-samples t tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used to explore mean differences in gait parameters.
resultsDistance walked over the 2MWT was very strongly associated with the 6MWT. Gait speed was higher during the shorter test, and several speed-related parameters significantly differed between the tests. There was a trend over the 6MWT, whereby participants performed better during the last 2 minutes of the test. Analyses revealed convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity of the 2MWT.
conclusionThese findings suggest that the 2MWT adequately captures walking capacity among people with mild to moderate PD and demonstrates robust convergent validity and ability to discriminate between people at different levels of disease severity. IMPACT: The 2MWT is a sufficient and valid alternative for physical therapists who wish to assess walking capacity in people with mild to moderate PD.
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.