↓ Skip to main content

The 6MWT as a prognostic tool in pulmonary arterial hypertension: results from the COMPERA registry

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
The 6MWT as a prognostic tool in pulmonary arterial hypertension: results from the COMPERA registry
Published in
Clinical Research in Cardiology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00392-018-1207-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas A. Zelniker, Dörte Huscher, Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf, Ralf Ewert, Tobias J. Lange, Hans Klose, Daniel Dumitrescu, Michael Halank, Matthis Held, Henning Gall, David Pittrow, Marius M. Hoeper, Lutz Frankenstein

Abstract

In patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is recommended for risk stratification and follow-up by all guidelines. However, the prognostic value of the 6MWT has been discussed controversially. We sought to compare and validate all published 6MWT cut-off points. From the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA)-registry we identified 2391 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension who had at least one documented 6MWT measurement. A Medline search identified a total of 21 different threshold values for either single-point or change of 6MWT. All values were tested individually for prognostication of 1-year, 2-year and 3-year all-cause mortality. The highest positive likelihood ratio was a cut-off value < 165 ms, whereas the best negative likelihood ratio was found to be a threshold of 440 ms. Furthermore, improvement in 6MWT had considerably less predictive value on mortality and survival than deterioration. Moreover, absolute single-point values outperformed change values for both improvement and worsening. Our data confirmed the prognostic relevance of the 6MWT and support the cut-off values stated in most recent guidelines. Furthermore, these results explain why changes in 6MWT did not correlate consistently with prognosis in previous studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 26 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,143,658
of 24,805,946 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#298
of 927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,000
of 451,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,805,946 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 927 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.