Background The endurance shuttle walking test (ESWT) has shown good responsiveness to interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the minimal important difference (MID) for this test remains unknown, therefore limiting its interpretability.
Methods Patients with COPD who completed two or more ESWTs following pulmonary rehabilitation (n=132; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 48±22%) or bronchodilation (n=69; FEV1 50±12%) rated their performance of the day in comparison with their previous performance on a 7-point scale ranging from −3 (large deterioration) to +3 (large improvement). The relationship between subjective perception of changes and objective changes in performance during the shuttle walk was evaluated.
Results Following pulmonary rehabilitation, the anchor-based approach did not allow a valid estimation of the MID in the ESWT performance to be obtained. After bronchodilation, patient ratings of change correlated significantly with the difference in walking distance (r=0.53, p<0.001) and endurance time (r=0.55, p<0.001). For the pharmacotherapy data, regression analysis indicated that a 65 s (95% CI 45 to 85) change in endurance time and a 95 m (95% CI 60 to 115) change in walking distance were associated with a 1-point change in the rating of change scale. These changes represented 13–15% of the baseline values.
Conclusions A change in endurance shuttle walking performance of 45–85 s (or 60–115 m) after bronchodilation is likely to be perceived by patients. This MID value may be specific to the intervention from which it was derived.
- shuttle walking test
- minimal important difference
- COPD mechanisms
- pulmonary rehabilitation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
VP and LL contributed equally to the work.
Funding VP is a research scholar of the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec. FM holds a GSK/CIHR Research Chair on COPD at Université Laval. This work has been supported in part by CIHR grant MOP-84091.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research Group, Institute for Lung Health, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK; Sherwood Forest Hospitals, Ashfield Community Hospital, Kirby-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, UK; and the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Canada.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.