↓ Skip to main content

Minimal important difference and responsiveness of 2-minute walk test performance in people with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Minimal important difference and responsiveness of 2-minute walk test performance in people with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s143179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie Nicole Johnston, Adrian James Potter, Anna Caroline Phillips

Abstract

Field exercise tests (eg, 6-minute walk test [6MWT]) are important measures of functional exercise capacity in people with COPD. Shorter tests such as the 2-minute walk test (2MWT) may offer advantages in some populations but lack information about responsiveness to change. This study examined responsiveness, minimal important difference (MID), test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the 2MWT in people with stable COPD attending outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). At pre-PR assessment, study participants completed a 2MWT twice in addition to usual measures (6MWT and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire). At post-PR assessment following a standard PR program, measures were repeated and global rating of change scores obtained (patient and therapist). Pre-post program change scores were examined for correlations with change in 2-minute walk distance (2MWD) and used (where r≥0.3) to estimate the MID through anchor-based methods. Distribution-based estimates based on standard error of measurement were examined. Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and Bland-Altman agreement) and validity (Pearson correlation with 6-minute walk distance [6MWD]) were reported. Fifty-nine people (28 men) with stable COPD, mean age 68 years (SD 10 years), and percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second 48% (SD 20%) attended pre-PR assessment. Test-retest ICC for same-session 2MWD was 0.985. A mean difference of 2.4 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-4.0 m, P=0.006) occurred between the first and second trials. 2MWD and 6MWD were highly correlated (r=0.87, P<0.001). Forty-one participants completed PR and were included in responsiveness and MID analysis. Mean 2MWD improved significantly post-PR (8.8 m, 95% CI 3.6-14 m, P=0.001). The MID in 2MWD, anchored against clinically meaningful change in 6MWD, was 5.5 m (area under curve =0.81, P=0.001). Distribution-based methods estimated an MID of 4 m. Change in 2MWD of at least 5.5 m following a PR program corresponded to a clinically meaningful change. A practice test is recommended due to learning effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 32 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,219,568
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,161
of 2,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,340
of 322,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#31
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 322,475 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.