Trial reportESC heart failure2026
Do repeat 6-minute walk tests provide clinically meaningful information in symptomatic heart failure?
Trial report in ESC heart failure, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTwo baseline 6-minute walk tests (6MWTs) have been recommended to mitigate a potential learning effect when assessing exercise performance, but the magnitude of any learning effect in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is uncertain. Using the Sildenafil in Heart Failure (SilHF) trial, in which two baseline 6MWTs were performed (screening and inclusion), we assessed a potential learning effect in this population. We also assessed whether choice of baseline test affected associations with longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and compared our findings to reports in the current literature.
methodsIn SilHF, 69 patients with HFrEF and evidence of pulmonary hypertension performed 6MWTs at screening and again at study inclusion. Tests were performed no more than 2 weeks apart on unchanged optimal medical therapy. Only the inclusion 6MWT was used for efficacy evaluation of sildenafil. Screening and inclusion distances were compared using a paired t-test. Additionally, we assessed whether each baseline 6MWT (screening and inclusion) correlated with longitudinal patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes included the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, assessed at 24 weeks.
resultsAlthough the inclusion 6MWT distance was statistically significantly higher than the screening test (+11.3 m, 95% confidence interval 2.6-20.1, P = .012), the two baseline tests demonstrated very similar correlation coefficients with longitudinal patient-reported outcomes.
conclusionWe observed a small increase in 6MWD between repeat baseline tests, consistent with a modest learning effect that is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Both initial 6MWTs showed similar significant correlations with other longitudinal patient-reported outcome measures. In symptomatic HFrEF with pulmonary hypertension, a single baseline 6MWT may be sufficient to assess functional capacity.
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.