“… 37 , 41 – 43 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 59 , 60 Of these, correlations between outcomes from the SGRQ total and distance covered in the 6MWT were most commonly reported. These correlations were typically significant, with six articles reporting weak negative Pearson’s correlations of −0.26, 37 −0.26 ( P <0.01), 59 −0.37 ( P <0.05), 41 −0.37 ( P =0.0228), 49 −0.39 ( P <0.01), 53 and −0.39 ( P =0.01), 60 demonstrating that as distance covered in the 6MWT increases, SGRQ total scores decrease, indicating better health status. There were also two studies reporting Spearman’s correlations of −0.27 42 (JP de Torres confirmed this was incorrectly reported as 0.27 in the article) and −0.56.…”