↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparison of laboratory- and field-based exercise tests for COPD: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of laboratory- and field-based exercise tests for COPD: a systematic review
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s70518
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iain Fotheringham, Georgina Meakin, Yogesh Punekar, John Riley, Sarah Cockle, Sally Singh

Abstract

Exercise tests are often used to evaluate the functional status of patients with COPD. However, to the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive systematic comparison of these tests has not been performed. We systematically reviewed studies reporting the repeatability and/or reproducibility of these tests, and studies comparing their sensitivity to therapeutic intervention. A systematic review identified primary manuscripts in English reporting relevant data on the following exercise tests: 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and 12-minute walk test, incremental and endurance shuttle walk tests (ISWT and ESWT, respectively), incremental and endurance cycle ergometer tests, and incremental and endurance treadmill tests. We identified 71 relevant studies. Good repeatability (for the 6MWT and ESWT) and reproducibility (for the 6MWT, 12-minute walk test, ISWT, ESWT, and incremental cycle ergometer test) were reported by most studies assessing these tests, providing patients were familiarized with them beforehand. The 6MWT, ISWT, and particularly the ESWT were reported to be sensitive to therapeutic intervention. Protocol variations (eg, track layout or supplemental oxygen use) affected performance significantly in several studies. This review shows that while the validity of several tests has been established, for others further study is required. Future work will assess the link between these tests, physiological mechanisms, and patient-reported measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 21%
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Sports and Recreations 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 19 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,658,882
of 5,200,400 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#448
of 634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,996
of 159,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,200,400 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 634 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 159,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.