ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Is the 3-min walk test a valid alternative to the 6-min walk test in typically developing school children?
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo test whether the 3-min Walk Test is a valid alternative to the 6-min Walk Test in typically developing children.
methodProspective study involving typically developing children at primary school was undertaken. The distance (m) covered during long-distance walking was measured using the 6-min Walk Test and recorded at 3 and 6 minutes.
results1512 typically developing children from 12 schools were measured. The children’s ages ranged from 6 to 12 years old, with a mean age of 9.4 years (SD 1.8), and 761 (50%) were male. The mean distance covered during the 6-min Walk Test was 628 m (SD 77) and 325 m (SD 41) during the 3-min Walk Test. Mean distance covered during the 6-min Walk Test was 1.9 times the distance covered during 3-min Walk Test and this relationship held true for both sexes until age 12 years old where it increased to 2.0 times. Correlation between the distance covered in the 6-min Walk Test and the 3-min Walk Test was very strong, at r = 0.91 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). Hold out validation showed that the model was not overfitting, and prediction accuracy was supported by a small standard error of estimate, suggesting that the results are generalizable. DISCUSSIONS/
conclusionsThe 3-min Walk Test is a valid alternative to the 6-min Walk Test in typically developing children and it can be used to predict the 6-min Walk Test.
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.