Back

Using Exercise Intensity to Predict a Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Six-Minute Walk Test in People with Chronic Stroke

McCartney, K. M.; Boyne, P.; Pohlig, R. T.; Morton, S. M.; Reisman, D. S.

2025-04-16 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2025.04.15.25325882 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPeople with chronic stroke have significant impairments in their walking capacity. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) can be used to interpret changes in patient outcomes following interventions. There is significant variability in the response to moderate-to-high walking interventions in people with chronic stroke. One reason for this response variability could be the lack of understanding of the threshold exercise dose needed to achieve an MCID. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the threshold of exercise training speed most predictive of a small (> 20m) or moderate (> 50m) clinically important difference in 6MWT in people with chronic stroke. Materials and MethodsParticipants with chronic stroke with a walking speed of 0.3-1.0m/s were randomized into a 12-week (1) fast-walking training or (2) fast-walking training and step-activity monitoring intervention. This analysis included participants (n = 129; age: 63.1 {+/-} 12.5, 46% female) with complete pre- and post-intervention data. Exercise intensity was quantified as average training speed. ResultsReceiver operating characteristic curves analyzed whether training speed is predictive of attaining a clinically important difference in the 6MWT. Training speed had poor, non-significant accuracy of predicting a small (AUC [95% CI] = 0.584 [0.475 - 0.693], p = 0.131) or moderate (AUC [95% CI] = 0.597 [0.498 - 0.696], p = 0.056) change in 6MWT. DiscussionThe average walking training speed during this high-intensity walking intervention did not accurately predict which people with chronic stroke would attain a small or moderate clinically meaningful change in 6MWT distance.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
Stroke
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
3
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
4
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.2%
6
Disability and Rehabilitation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.4%
8
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.4%
10
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.7%
12
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
14
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
15
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
16
Gait & Posture
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
17
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
19
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
20
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
22
Physiological Reports
40 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
23
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
25
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%