Evaluation of the best environment for the six-minute walk test
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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 |