ArticleOpen heart2026
Validity, reliability and clinical utility of the Glittre ADL test in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Article in Open heart, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActivities of daily living (ADL) are frequently impaired in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is widely used for functional assessment, it primarily evaluates walking endurance and may not fully reflect complex ADL involving upper limb activities and postural changes. This study investigated the validity, reliability and clinical utility of the Glittre ADL test in AF.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 39 AF patients and 39 matched healthy controls. All participants completed the Glittre ADL test. Concurrent validity was assessed using the 6MWT. Construct validity was evaluated using peripheral muscle strength, the five-times sit-to-stand test (5STS), Short Form-36, Atrial Fibrillation Impact Questionnaire and Milliken ADL Scale. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) by repeating the test after 1 hour.Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to assess the ability of the Glittre ADL test to discriminate individuals with increased symptom burden based on 6MWT performance; the optimal cut-off was determined using the Youden index.
resultsAF patients completed the Glittre ADL test significantly slower than healthy controls (198.98 s vs 180.09 s, p<0.05). Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC=0.914; 95% CI 0.834 to 0.955). Test duration showed a strong negative correlation with 6MWT distance (r=-0.87, p<0.001) and significant correlations with 5STS performance, peripheral muscle strength and physical quality-of-life components (p<0.05). ROC analysis indicated high discriminative ability area under the curve=0.967; 95% CI 0.922 to 1.000), with an optimal cut-off of 196.52 s (sensitivity 100%, specificity 82.6%).
conclusionsThe Glittre ADL test is valid, reliable and clinically useful for assessing complex ADLs in AF patients. The defined cut-off helps clinicians identify functional impairment.
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.