Enhancing the assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness using field tests

Abstract

Objective To establish normative values and reference equations of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and unsupported upper limb exercise test (UULEX) for Portuguese adults. 2 Design Cross-sectional study. Descriptive statistics and differences between age decades and genders were explored using univariate general linear models to compute reference values. Reference equations were established with a forward stepwise multiple regression. Setting General community. Participants In total, 645 adult volunteers without disabilities [43% male, mean age 55.1 (standard deviation 23.6) years] were recruited from the university campus and surrounding community. Intervention Not applicable. Main outcome measures Data on age, gender, height, weight, body mass index and smoking status were collected using a structured questionnaire. Physical activity was evaluated using the Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool. Participants performed two repetitions of the 6MWT, ISWT and UULEX, and the best repetition was used for analysis. Results Overall, performance was better in males than in females, and decreased with age. Participants' performance was significantly reduced after the sixth decade of life compared with the other decades (P<0.001). Reference equations were: 6MWT=226.93-(5.00×age)+(360.41×height), R 2 =71%; ISWT=393.81-(17.98×age)+(185.64×gender)+(775.88×height), R 2 =83%; and UULEX=16.71-(0.14×age)+(2.66×gender), R 2 =57%. Conclusion Leg or arm exercise field tests are affected significantly by age and gender. These results will aid health professionals to interpret the results of field tests obtained from healthy or diseased adult populations.

Cortical Engagement Metrics During Reactive Balance Are Associated With Distinct Aspects of Balance Behavior in Older Adults

“…Upon arrival to the lab and prior to neurophysiologic instrumentation, participants completed the miniBEST to assess general clinical balance function. The miniBEST is a validated and commonly used clinical assessment for assessing static and dynamic balance ability and fall risk in elderly adults (Marques et al, 2016). Briefly, the miniBEST assesses domains of anticipatory balance control, reactive postural control, sensory orientation, and dynamic gait using a likert subscale of 0-2 for each domain, where higher scores indicate better performance.…”

“…Growing evidence shows that engagement of cortical resources during balance is an indicator of fall risk in older adults, where a concurrent cognitive task shifts cortical resources away from balance control (Lundin-Olsson et al, 1997;Shumway-Cook et al, 1997;Woollacott and Shumway-Cook, 2002;Montero-Odasso et al, 2012). Commonly used clinical tests, such as the miniBEST, that assess a myriad of aspects of postural control including single-task, cognitive dual-task, and reactive balance, have high clinical utility, but are nonspecific, lack precision, and can impose a ceiling effect on individuals with higher balance ability (Marques et al, 2016). The ability to react to a loss of balance is a key factor that ultimately determines whether an individual will sustain a fall.…”

What Motivates Patients with COPD to Be Physically Active? A Cross-Sectional Study

“…The exercise capacity was assessed with the 6-min walk test (6MWT), according to the ATS/ERS standards [ 41 ] on a 30-meter indoor walking track. The distance (6MWD) and percentage predicted [ 42 ] were reported. Participants were further categorised as having low (6MWD <350 m) or high (6MWD ≥350 m) exercise capacity [ 43 , 44 ].…”

Functional Status Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Responders and Non-Responders

“…Participants with impairment in the 6MWT and the 1 min STS were defined as those with values below 70% of the percentage predicted [29]. For the 6MWT, the percentage predicted was computed from the equation proposed by Marques and colleagues [30] and for the 1 min STS, the reference values established by Strassmann and colleagues were used [28]. Responders were defined based on previously established minimal clinically important differences.…”