Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41403426›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2025

The safety, physiological response and repeatability of the incremental shuttle walk test in survivors of COVID-19.

Molly M Baldwin, Enya Daynes, Urvee Karsanji, Hamish J C McAuley, Nicolette C Bishop, Charlotte E Bolton, William D-C Man, Ioannis Vogiatzis, James D Chalmers, Ling-Pei Ho and 22 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors.

Molly M BaldwinNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6269-7961
Enya DaynesNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0127-1649
Urvee KarsanjiNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Hamish J C McAuleyNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8997-0764
Nicolette C BishopNational Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Charlotte E BoltonCentre for Respiratory Research, Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9578-2249
William D-C ManHarefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3782-659X
Ioannis VogiatzisDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4830-7207
James D ChalmersUniversity of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5514-7868
Ling-Pei HoMRC Translational Immune Discovery Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Alex HorsleyNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1828-0058
Michael MarksDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7585-4743
Krisnah PoinasamyAsthma+Lung UK, London, UK.
Betty RamanRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1239-9608
Olivia C LeavyNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Matthew RichardsonNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Omer ElneimaNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Aarti ShikotraNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Amisha SingapuriNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Marco SerenoNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Ruth M SaundersNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Victoria C HarrisNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Linzy Houchen-WolloffNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4940-8835
Neil J GreeningNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0453-7529
Ewen M HarrisonThe Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Annemarie B DochertyThe Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nazir I LoneThe Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2707-2779
Jennifer K QuintSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0149-4869
Louise V WainNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4951-1867
Christopher E BrightlingNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Rachael A EvansNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1667-868X
Sally J SinghNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9834-0366

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) may be a valuable tool for measuring exercise tolerance in patients after a hospital admission with COVID-19. However, the safety, physiological response and repeatability of the ISWT are unknown in this cohort. The present study aimed to explore the properties of this test using the Post-Hospital COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. Methods: Participants performed two ISWTs, with a 30-min rest between tests, at 5 and 12 months post-hospital discharge for COVID-19. Heart rate and fingertip peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded pre- and post-test. Reasons for test termination were noted. Results: 1593 individuals (median (interquartile range) age 58 (50-66) years and body mass index 31.2 (27.6-35.8) kg·m Conclusions: The ISWT appeared to be safe in this large cohort, supporting use of this field walking test for this population in clinical and research settings. A familiarisation test is recommended, with further study needed to determine the number of familiarisation tests required to achieve acceptable within-day repeatability.

Identifiers

PMID41403426
PMCPMC12704175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.