Evidence Hub

Functional Capacity Incorporating Dynamic Ventilation in Systemic Sclerosis: Agreement Analysis Between Performance on the 6-Minute Walk Test and Glittre–ADL Test

Filipe da Silva Reis, Luis Felipe da Fonseca Reis, Isabelle da Nóbrega Ferreira, Iasmim de Oliveira Farias, L. Pessoa, Lohana Resende da Costa, Hebert Olímpio, A. de Sá Ferreira et al.

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

Background Functional capacity at submaximal exercise levels has become more popular as an outcome measure in systemic sclerosis (SSc). However, it is necessary to know the ventilatory requirements of the different field tests. Objectives To verify the agreement of the ventilatory dynamics measured at submaximal exercise between the the Glittre-ADL test (TGlittre) and the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and, secondarily, to evaluate the correlations of these measurements with clinical and functional variables in women with SSc (wwSSc). Methods This was a cross-sectional study in which 30 wwSSc underwent the 6MWT and TGlittre while hooked to a device reading their ventilatory demand. Physical function was assessed on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and lung function was assessed by spirometry. Results The median 6-min walking distance (6MWD) was 344 (282–410) metres, and 25 (83.3%) participants did not reach 80% of the predicted distance. The median TGlittre time was 147 (107–188) seconds, and 18 (60%) participants exceeded 120% of the predicted time. There was agreement between the two tests on the following variables: heart rate (ICC = 0.883, P < 0.0001), breathing reserve (ICC = 0.816, P < 0.0001), peripheral oxygen saturation (ICC = 0.752, P = 0.0009), inspiratory capacity (ICC = 0.690, P < 0.0001), and peak minute ventilation (ICC = 0.433, P = 0.007). There was a weak correlation between 6MWD and TGlittre time (rs=–0.353, P = 0.05). 6MWD correlated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free