Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Santos de Faria Júnior, Newton
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Hiroshi Nakata, Cláudio, Franco de Oliveira, Luís Vicente, Chiappa, Gaspar Rogério, Cipriano Júnior, Gerson
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Fisioterapia em Movimento
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21764
Resumo: Introduction: The purpose of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) is to evaluate cardiopulmonary capacity using a low-cost test that is easy to administer, generally well tolerated by different populations and reflects one’s performance on activities of daily living. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the difference between performing the 6MWT indoors and outdoors. Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the distance covered on the 6MWT performed indoors and outdoors and evaluate the following physiological variables: heart rate, blood pressure and the subjective sensation of shortness of breath, using the Borg perceived exertion scale. Materials and methods: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial was conducted involving eight healthy females not engaged in regular physical activity, with mean age 23.75 ± 1.67 years. Each subject performed the 6MWT indoors and outdoors with a 30-minute interval between tests. The order of the tests was determined randomly. Results: The mean distance traveled was 578 ± 50.07 m on the outdoor trial and 579.95 ± 45.35 m on the indoor trial (p = 0.932). The mean physiological variables were 82.25 ± 11.02 bpm (indoors) versus 84.38 ± 9.42 bpm (outdoors) for heart rate, 121.88 ± 10.28 mmHg (indoors) versus 118.75 ± 19.40 mmHg (outdoors) for systolic blood pressure, 81.88 ± 9.74 mmHg (indoors) versus 80.50 ± 7.89 mmHg (outdoors) for diastolic blood pressure and a mean score of 12 on the perceived exertion score in both environments. Conclusions: The present data demonstrate no differences in the distance walked on the 6MWT or the physiologic variables of participants between the indoor and outdoor trials.
id PUC_PR-26_050fadf094235d513348efc839c5b1c9
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.pucpr.br:article/21764
network_acronym_str PUC_PR-26
network_name_str Fisioterapia em Movimento
repository_id_str
spelling Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk testIntroduction: The purpose of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) is to evaluate cardiopulmonary capacity using a low-cost test that is easy to administer, generally well tolerated by different populations and reflects one’s performance on activities of daily living. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the difference between performing the 6MWT indoors and outdoors. Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the distance covered on the 6MWT performed indoors and outdoors and evaluate the following physiological variables: heart rate, blood pressure and the subjective sensation of shortness of breath, using the Borg perceived exertion scale. Materials and methods: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial was conducted involving eight healthy females not engaged in regular physical activity, with mean age 23.75 ± 1.67 years. Each subject performed the 6MWT indoors and outdoors with a 30-minute interval between tests. The order of the tests was determined randomly. Results: The mean distance traveled was 578 ± 50.07 m on the outdoor trial and 579.95 ± 45.35 m on the indoor trial (p = 0.932). The mean physiological variables were 82.25 ± 11.02 bpm (indoors) versus 84.38 ± 9.42 bpm (outdoors) for heart rate, 121.88 ± 10.28 mmHg (indoors) versus 118.75 ± 19.40 mmHg (outdoors) for systolic blood pressure, 81.88 ± 9.74 mmHg (indoors) versus 80.50 ± 7.89 mmHg (outdoors) for diastolic blood pressure and a mean score of 12 on the perceived exertion score in both environments. Conclusions: The present data demonstrate no differences in the distance walked on the 6MWT or the physiologic variables of participants between the indoor and outdoor trials.Editora PUCPRESS2017-09-20info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/2176410.1590/0103-5150.028.003.AO01Fisioterapia em Movimento (Physical Therapy in Movement); Vol. 28 No. 3 (2015)Fisioterapia em Movimento; v. 28 n. 3 (2015)1980-5918reponame:Fisioterapia em Movimentoinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)instacron:PUC_PRenghttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21764/20892Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESSinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSantos de Faria Júnior, NewtonHiroshi Nakata, CláudioFranco de Oliveira, Luís VicenteChiappa, Gaspar RogérioCipriano Júnior, Gerson2022-03-07T19:01:25Zoai:ojs.periodicos.pucpr.br:article/21764Revistahttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisioPRIhttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/oairubia.farias@pucpr.br||revista.fisioterapia@pucpr.br1980-59180103-5150opendoar:2022-03-07T19:01:25Fisioterapia em Movimento - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
title Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
spellingShingle Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
Santos de Faria Júnior, Newton
title_short Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
title_full Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
title_fullStr Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
title_sort Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
author Santos de Faria Júnior, Newton
author_facet Santos de Faria Júnior, Newton
Hiroshi Nakata, Cláudio
Franco de Oliveira, Luís Vicente
Chiappa, Gaspar Rogério
Cipriano Júnior, Gerson
author_role author
author2 Hiroshi Nakata, Cláudio
Franco de Oliveira, Luís Vicente
Chiappa, Gaspar Rogério
Cipriano Júnior, Gerson
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Santos de Faria Júnior, Newton
Hiroshi Nakata, Cláudio
Franco de Oliveira, Luís Vicente
Chiappa, Gaspar Rogério
Cipriano Júnior, Gerson
description Introduction: The purpose of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) is to evaluate cardiopulmonary capacity using a low-cost test that is easy to administer, generally well tolerated by different populations and reflects one’s performance on activities of daily living. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the difference between performing the 6MWT indoors and outdoors. Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the distance covered on the 6MWT performed indoors and outdoors and evaluate the following physiological variables: heart rate, blood pressure and the subjective sensation of shortness of breath, using the Borg perceived exertion scale. Materials and methods: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial was conducted involving eight healthy females not engaged in regular physical activity, with mean age 23.75 ± 1.67 years. Each subject performed the 6MWT indoors and outdoors with a 30-minute interval between tests. The order of the tests was determined randomly. Results: The mean distance traveled was 578 ± 50.07 m on the outdoor trial and 579.95 ± 45.35 m on the indoor trial (p = 0.932). The mean physiological variables were 82.25 ± 11.02 bpm (indoors) versus 84.38 ± 9.42 bpm (outdoors) for heart rate, 121.88 ± 10.28 mmHg (indoors) versus 118.75 ± 19.40 mmHg (outdoors) for systolic blood pressure, 81.88 ± 9.74 mmHg (indoors) versus 80.50 ± 7.89 mmHg (outdoors) for diastolic blood pressure and a mean score of 12 on the perceived exertion score in both environments. Conclusions: The present data demonstrate no differences in the distance walked on the 6MWT or the physiologic variables of participants between the indoor and outdoor trials.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-09-20
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21764
10.1590/0103-5150.028.003.AO01
url https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21764
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/0103-5150.028.003.AO01
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21764/20892
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESS
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESS
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora PUCPRESS
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora PUCPRESS
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Fisioterapia em Movimento (Physical Therapy in Movement); Vol. 28 No. 3 (2015)
Fisioterapia em Movimento; v. 28 n. 3 (2015)
1980-5918
reponame:Fisioterapia em Movimento
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
instacron:PUC_PR
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
instacron_str PUC_PR
institution PUC_PR
reponame_str Fisioterapia em Movimento
collection Fisioterapia em Movimento
repository.name.fl_str_mv Fisioterapia em Movimento - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv rubia.farias@pucpr.br||revista.fisioterapia@pucpr.br
_version_ 1799138747559706624