An original field evaluation test for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease population: the six-minute stepper test

Borel, Benoit; Fabre, Claudine; Saison, Sylvain; Bart, F.; Grosbois, Jean-Marie

doi:10.1177/0269215509343848

Cited by 61 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They were all low-level patients with significant functional limitations. As most current step tests are 6 minutes in duration [22] [23], which our experience suggests is too strenuous for this patient population to complete, we chose a 2-minute step test for assessment. Our goal was a feasible and highly flexible test for functional assessment with results comparable to a known standard.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because learning effects with repeated testing have been shown to improve outcomes of the 6MWT [26] as well as step tests [22] we evaluated the effects of familiarity by having subjects perform each test twice. The 5% improvement noted in the 6MWT is consistent with previous reports [5] [10], and the 7% improvement in the 2MST reflects a learning effect that is not significantly different.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data collection: The following variables were collected: gender, age, diagnosis, heart rate (HR), O 2 saturation (O 2 sat), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BPs, BPd), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) [22].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stepping is particularly attractive for the current purpose because it requires a minimum of space and technical expertise, especially when used in conjunction with pulseoximetry [22]. In addition, stair height (i.e., the riser) is dictated by [17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validation of a 2 Minute Step Test for Assessing Functional Improvement

Haas¹,

Sweeney²,

Pierre³

et al. 2017

OJTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Although many cardiopulmonary patients require home care services, the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is unusable in most dwellings for objectively evaluating exercise capacity because it requires a 20 -30 meter hallway. To meet this need, we developed a 2-minute step test (2MST): stepping up and down an 8 inch step for 2 minutes (1 step = bilateral step up + step down). Purpose: Evaluate the statistical validity, reproducibility, and sensitivity of the 2MST in assessing exercise capacity. Method: We compared the heart rate, oxygen saturation and perceived exertion obtained during performance of 2MST with those obtained during the 6MWT. Results: Comparing 2MST and 6MWT in 158 subjects for validity, r = 0.925 (P < 0.0001). They were statistically equivalent in heart rate (98 ± 4 and 94 ± 4 bpm), oxygen saturation (96 ± 0.5 and 95 ± 0.6%), rating of perceived exertion (14.6 ± 0.4 and 13.4 ± 0.4), and blood pressure (130 ± 4/62 ± 3 and 128 ± 3/62 ± 2 mmHg), (mean ± SE, 2MST and 6MWT, respectively). Reproducibility revealed small learning effects: 8% and 5% for the 2MST and 6MWT, respectively (P < 0.001). Sensitivity of the 2MST was high, based both on the number of steps achieved by inpatients (27 ± 13 steps, mean ± SD), outpatients (48 ± 14 steps), and healthy subjects (64 ± 18 steps) (P < 0.001), and by the outpatients before (36 ± 11 steps) and after (42 ± 14 steps) rehabilitation (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The 2MST is valid, reproducible, sensitive, safe, well-tolerated, and is a suitable substitute for the 6MWT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validation of a 2 Minute Step Test for Assessing Functional Improvement

Haas¹,

Sweeney²,

Pierre³

et al. 2017

OJTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature on field tests for lung capacity measurement is also sparse, although specific lung capacity tests have been performed in laboratory settings on patients with thoracic problems [16][17][18]. In addition, two studies have reported lung capacity field tests carried out in conjunction with population-based physical fitness assessments conducted using the protocols of the China Sports Bureau [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can a cardiorespiratory field parameter assess both cardiovascular and respiratory fitness in schoolchildren?

Chung¹,

Chow²,

Tsang³

et al. 2014

Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cardiorespiratory fitness involves both cardiovascular and respiratory capacities. However, existing methods have been criticised for reflecting cardiovascular fitness, but not pulmonary fitness. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between these two testing parameters. Methods: A crosssectional population-based physical fitness assessment was conducted in 23 schools. The body height and weight, lung capacity, and step test results of students aged 10 -18 were recorded. Criterion-referenced standards from the China Sports Bureau were adopted, as they include separate measurements for cardiovascular and pulmonary fitness. Results: The Pearson coefficients of lung capacity and the step test index from 13,028 schoolchildren ranged from 0.007 to 0.086 and from 0.026 to 0.105 for boys and girls, respectively, showing that poor correlations exist between the two parameters. Cluster analysis resulted in three clusters of children with similar characteristics. A good degree of similarity was found between the two parameters in children obtaining an "excellent" grade, but only a moderate degree of similarity between the two parameters in those obtaining a "good", "pass" or "fail" grade. Conclusion: When cardiovascular fitness and pulmonary fitness are considered separately, there is a poor correlation between them, thus indicating further studies of cardiopulmonary fitness measurements is necessary.

show abstract