Author
Listed:
- Busaba Chuatrakoon
- Natakit Seepang
- Derin Chaiwong
- Rawes Nanavichit
- Kittipan Rerkasem
- Sothida Nantakool
Abstract
Background: Despite a practical guideline of 30-meter walking path during 6-minute walk test (6MWT), such walking course length is not possible in every clinical setting due to unavailable sufficient space. Existing evidence has investigated using several shorter course lengths, it remains unclear whether a walking course length shorter than the standard walking course length is appropriate for 6MWD testing. This study aimed (i) to compare maximum walking distances at various shorter walking course lengths (i.e., 10, 20, and 25 meters) and 30 meters, and (ii) to assess agreements in maximum walking distances achieved at intervals below 30 meters, specifically 10, 15, 20, and 25 meters. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional with cross-over design. Forty-eight healthy participants were randomly ordered to perform 6MWT with five different walkways (10, 15, 20, 25, 30 meters). The maximum walking distance (six-minute walk distance, 6MWD) covered was recorded. Results: Eligible participants aged 41.0 ± 17.2 years, with equal sex (24 males) participated in this study. The 6MWD at 10, 15, and 20-meter walkways significantly shorter than the 30-meter standard walkway (489.6 ± 59.3 m, 513.1 ± 62.6 m, 524.7 ± 63.7 m vs 539.1 ± 63.1 m, respectively (P
Suggested Citation
Busaba Chuatrakoon & Natakit Seepang & Derin Chaiwong & Rawes Nanavichit & Kittipan Rerkasem & Sothida Nantakool, 2025.
"The agreement of the various distance walkway in the 6-minute walk test in healthy adults,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-8, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0321503
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321503
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0321503. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.