ArticlePloS one2025
The agreement of the various distance walkway in the 6-minute walk test in healthy adults.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- The Effect of Whole-Body Cryotherapy on Exercise Capacity of Healthy Training Men.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Not All Corridors are Equal: Corridor Length Affects 6-minute Walk Test Performance-A Randomized Crossover Trial.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Minimal clinically important difference of the 6-Minute walk test and daily step count at 3 months following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Effects of Short-Term Structural Exercise on Cardiopulmonary Function, Quality of Life, and Oxidative Status in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Case Series.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite a practical guideline of 30-meter walking path during 6-minute walk test (6MWT), such walking course length is not possible in every clinical setting due to unavailable sufficient space. Existing evidence has investigated using several shorter course lengths, it remains unclear whether a walking course length shorter than the standard walking course length is appropriate for 6MWD testing. This study aimed (i) to compare maximum walking distances at various shorter walking course lengths (i.e., 10, 20, and 25 meters) and 30 meters, and (ii) to assess agreements in maximum walking distances achieved at intervals below 30 meters, specifically 10, 15, 20, and 25 meters.
methodsThis study was a cross-sectional with cross-over design. Forty-eight healthy participants were randomly ordered to perform 6MWT with five different walkways (10, 15, 20, 25, 30 meters). The maximum walking distance (six-minute walk distance, 6MWD) covered was recorded.
resultsEligible participants aged 41.0 ± 17.2 years, with equal sex (24 males) participated in this study. The 6MWD at 10, 15, and 20-meter walkways significantly shorter than the 30-meter standard walkway (489.6 ± 59.3 m, 513.1 ± 62.6 m, 524.7 ± 63.7 m vs 539.1 ± 63.1 m, respectively (P<0.01)). Very strong agreement was observed at 15, 20, and 25 meters with the standard 30 meters (0.819-0.875, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed strong to very strong agreement in 10-meter walkway length onwards with the standard walkway length among older adults (0.757-0.918, P<0.001).
conclusionsTesting on 20 meters walkway and shorter yielded varied results compared to the standard 30-meter walk, with exceptional congruence observed at 15 meters onwards. In particular, a minimum walkway of 10 meters had strong agreement with a standard 30-meter walkway in elderly.
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.