The Historical and Clinical Significance of the 6-

Minute Walk Test

By Dustin Grinnell

Introduction

The six-minute walk test (6MWT) is a simple, objective, and reproducible measurement of

functional capacity. Instructed to walk as far as they can in six minutes the primary outcome

measurement for a patient is a six-minute walk distance (6MWD).

The test is most commonly used to assess the functional status of patients with cardiovascular

and/or respiratory diseases. It is used commonly in interventions, or before and after certain

treatments. It is often used in rehabilitation programs, to measure physical fitness, or in some

cases as predictive tool of morbidity or mortality.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a qualitative review of the literature surrounding the

6MWT. It will first explore the history and evolution of the test, and then provide an overview of

its current applications in the clinic. Finally it will examine its significance in the clinic defined

by its benefits, limitations, and predictive or prognostic value.

History

The time-distance walk was first introduced by Balke in the 1960’s as a straightforward

and objective measure of functional capacity. The test simply required a patient to walk as far as

they possibly could in a set period of time with the primary outcome measure being the total

distanced walked in the time allotted [1].

As a simple measure of physical fitness Cooper developed the specific time of 12 minutes

and was responsible for the introduction of the 12-minute walk test [2]. In 1976 C.R. Macgavin

and colleagues began using the 12-minute walk test as a measure of functional capacity in

patients with chronic bronchitis [3].

In 1982 Butland and colleagues evaluated the possibility of reducing the time patients

would be required to walk. The health statuses of patients under study were often so poor

patients would frequently lack the motivation for even 12 minutes of physical activity. In some

cases patients were simply limited by their symptoms. Their study compared two, six, and twelve

minute walk tests and determined that 6-minute results correlated strongly with the 12-minute.

This ultimately led to the halving of 12-minute time requirement and the introduction of 6MWT

as the standard assessment of functional capacity [4].

The 6MWT was used widely in many test centers and laboratories on patient populations

with chronic respiratory disease and respiratory failure. In 1985 it was first used in patients with

heart disease by Guyatt et al. [5] and Lipkin et al., who also began using it as an exercise test

around the same time [6].

As the test became used more widely slight variations on aspects of the test began to

evolve. From investigator to investigator testing conditions began to change and thus protocols

began to differ. First, the shapes and distances of the walking courses began to vary. Some

investigators used a straight (out and back) track, others a continuous track: circular, oval, or

rectangular. Those who used a straight track (often a hallway or corridor) varied the distance

between start and end points, either 20, 30, or 50 meters. Moreover, while most used a hard-

surfaced hallway or corridor, there were some who performed the 6MWT on a treadmill. Other

differences developed over time including: the use of verbal encouragement, the use of a

learning or practice session to familiarize patients with the procedure, the decision to walk with

or behind a patient if they needed assistance or help with supplemental oxygen, and the use and

timing of administration of medications like bronchodilators.

Also, depending on the research question and/or testing population different investigators

began to include various secondary measurements to complement the 6MWD result. These

include: blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, fatigue, blood saturation (using pulse

oximetry), and/or dyspnea (using the Borg Dyspnea Index Scale).

To reduce the variation from protocol to protocol and standardize the 6MWT guidelines

were published by the American Thoracic Society in 2002 [7]. Based on a great deal of

experimental evidence this publication made clear how the 6MWT should be run.

Even with the introduction of a standardized procedure and its thrust to reduce variation

Butland showed that outcomes from the 6MWT would naturally vary with anthropometric

variables, namely: age, gender, height and weight [8]. Taking these anthropometric variables into

account soon reference equations were published, which enabled investigators to make 6MWD

predictions (which could theoretically be compared to the actual distanced walked [9, 10]).

Finally, worth noting, are tests apart from the 6MWT, which assess aerobic and

functional capacity. These include stair climbing, the shuttle walk test [11, 12] the cardiac stress

test [13] and the cardiopulmonary exercise test [14].

Clinical Applications

The 6MWT is primarily a test for measuring functional capacity in patients with

cardiovascular or respiratory diseases. When complications are cardiovascular chronic heart

failure is often the main disease under study [15, 16, 17]. For respiratory, patient diseases are

commonly: chronic lung disease [18] or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [19].

The 6MWT has been shown to be very responsive [20] so it is used often to measure

changes in (functional) status over time. It is therefore used before and after interventions, or

treatments, for patients with the abovementioned cardiorespiratory conditions, or in pulmonary

rehabilitation programs in patients undergoing lung volume reduction [21] or lung

transplantation [22].

The 6MWT is often used at the beginning of rehabilitation programs to determine a

patient’s exercise capacity, and at the end to assess the degree of improvement and/or the success

of a program. Because of the test’s sensitivity future exercise guidelines can be created [23]

based on the outcome of a patient’s walking results.

Recently it has been suggested that the 6MWT could allow patients to measure their own

changes in functional capacity, i.e. be used as a self-administered exercise test [24].

Because the elderly are often limited in functionality and exercise capacity the 6MWT is

a commonly used as a performance-based measure of functional capacity in this population [25]

and as a predictor of disability [26], morbidity and mortality [27-33].

Clinical Significance

Clinical Benefits:

Easy Administration

The 6MWT is both simple for the evaluators in terms of set-up, and for the patients who

ultimately perform it. In March of 2002 The American Thoracic Society published a valuable

reference for investigators interested in using the 6MWT, complete with specific guidelines and

a step-by-step protocol. Compared to cardiopulmonary testing which is traditionally expensive

and time-consuming the 6MWT is both inexpensive and relatively quick to perform. In addition,

the test can be carried out in a non-laboratory setting, requires very little equipment and can be

performed without the presence of a physician.

Safe: Submaximal and Self-paced

The submaximal nature and the self-paced aspect of the 6MWT makes it’s a very safe

evaluation. Because the test is relatively low-intensity it allows the assessment of many

individuals who would be otherwise limited by their symptoms during an evaluation of their

functional status or exercise capacity. This is true in the various disease states in which the

6MWT is indicated for and especially true in elderly persons where physical limitations can

prevent more “strenuous” evaluations of functional capacity [34]. In two very large studies

thousands of patients were subjected to the test without any complications or complaints of

limiting symptoms [35, 36]. And finally, should complications arise, because the test is self-

paced, patients can stop the test at any time they feel necessary.

Reliable, Valid, and Reproducible

Despite variation in testing protocols and natural variation in characteristics of patients

the 6MWT has been proven to be a reliable, valid [37] and reproducible [38] test of functional

capacity. Furthermore, interpretation of the results is relatively straightforward and has been

enhanced with the introduction of reference equations to calculate predicted distances. And

finally, because it is a “walking” test the task is representative of an activity performed in normal

daily living. It is therefore somewhat of an indicator of a patient’s quality of life.

Clinical Limitations:

Reference Data and Equations

On the whole there is little reference data outside certain age and gender populations and

although the current reference equations are useful, according to the American Thoracic

Society’s 6MWT guidelines optimal reference equations have yet to be created [7, 9]. Therefore

different reference equations are used to predict 6MWDs and consequently there is variation in

the prediction values. This fact makes it difficult to compare predicted distances by the reference

equations from study to study and until more comprehensive and better reliable equations are

published predicting patient six-minute walk distances is somewhat limited [10].

In addition, because of Troosters and colleagues results even if the ATS guidelines are

strictly adhered to there will always be inherent variability in the 6MWD as a result of

differences from patient to patient the most common sources being: age, gender, height and

weight [8].

Use of Alternative Protocols

As discussed earlier over time aspects of the 6MWT began to diverge among

investigators. Although the American Thoracic Society’s guidelines have reduced the variation

in the 6MWD outcome, it is difficult to compare 6MWD’s from study to study due to the

widespread use of alternative protocols and slightly different test parameters.

In the past there was little agreement on three parameters: the walking course shape (use

of straight vs. continuous), and with the straight shape: the length that should be used, as well as

the track surface used (hallway vs. treadmill).

Weiss et al. determined that the layout of the track did have an effect on the 6MWD.

Participants who were tested on a continuous track (circular or oval) walked 92.2-feet longer

than those tested on a straight (down and back) course [39]. It is now commonly agreed that the

test should be performed on a straight track. With regards to the distance between the start and

end points, it was found that from 50 to 164 ft there was no difference between walking

distances; it is for this reason that the ATS recommends using 100 ft, or 30 m [7].

Although the use of a treadmill provides many advantages over a hallway or corridor

many studies have shown that mean walking distances are 14% shorter with the use of a

treadmill compared to distance of patients walking in a 100 ft straight corridor [40-42]. For this

reason it is not recommended that the test be performed on a treadmill.

When a patient has difficulty walking some investigators have aided patients by walking

behind or next to them, or if they have supplemental oxygen helped them push their tank. It is

recommended that neither should be done [7] as it appears doing either of three introduces great

variation into the total distance walked. Compared to patients who walked alone, patients who

are aided in the abovementioned ways have been proved to walk greater distances [43].

Many studies have shown that 6MWDs can vary based on the use of encouraging words.

The common finding is that the use of verbal encouragement results in significant improvement

in the primary outcome measure [44]. In an effort to eliminate this source of variation it is

commonly agreed on that the use of standardized encouragement should be used [7, 45].

The Learning and Ceiling Effect

It is well understood that patients should be properly introduced to the test’s protocol and

conditions in order to reduce apprehension or fear a patient may have prior to beginning. On top

of formally familiarizing patients some studies have tried to control this variable with a practice

walk or a learning session [46].

However, many studies have shown that doing leads to increased 6MWDs, because of the

so called “learning effect” [4, 47]. Although it has been shown that there is no difference

between walk tests done 30 minutes or 24 hours apart [48], Pinna et al. showed that the learning

effect causes significant improvements in walking distances over the first five walks [49]. It is

well accepted now that the use of one or two practice tests sufficiently familiarizes the patient

with the 6MWT while introducing the least variation in the distances they walk [50].

It is worth noting that a 6MWT result can be too high to detect further improvement due

to the so called “ceiling effect,” evidenced by Frost et al. [51].

Patient Health Condition

Although the 6MWT is a submaximal test of functional capacity Reybrouk points out that

there are those with very serious preexisting health problems which may exclude them from even

the most low-intensity of exercises, including the 6MWT [52].

Predictive/Prognostic Value:

Despite its many applications, benefits, and countless refinements since its introduction

to the clinic, the 6MWT has been controversial in regards to its predictive or prognostic value.

This section will explore the usefulness of the 6MWT and its value in this regard.

Distanced Walked (6MWD)

In general an improvement or decline in distanced walked is clinically important. An

increase in distanced walked could indicate an overall improvement of functional capacity, the

efficacy of an intervention, or rehabilitation program, an improvement in exercise capacity, or be

a predictor of morbidity or mortality [53, 54]. How much of an improvement is clinically

significant? Redelmeier and colleagues showed that mean improvements of 70-170 meters are

significant and indicate a change in functional status. The minimum clinically important

difference was found to be 54 meters [18].

In many studies the test has been used as a one-time measure of functional capacity/status

in adults with chronic heart failure or chronic lung disease because the 6MWD has shown to

correlate strongly with functional status questionnaires given to patients [55].

Use of Normative Data

Comparing patient data to normative data can be useful in the interpretation of results.

There are many studies which provide these data. One study showed a median 6MWD to be

approximately 580 meters for 117 healthy men and 500 meters for 173 healthy women [56]. In a

study by Gibbons et al. with a mean age of 45.1 years the mean 6MWD was 698 m [10]. In an

elderly population with a mean age of 65 years a study by Troosters et al. years showed a mean

6MWD of 613 m [57]. In another population of elderly patients with a mean age of 74.1 years

the mean 6MWD was 505 m for men and 467 m for women [58]. Most likely these results vary

due to the differences in the protocols each investigator used. Even with the variation, the data

can serve as useful benchmarks upon which to compare one’s own results.

Use of Reference Equations

Provided current reference equations are used, (by Enright and Sherill – based off of

6MWT performances of 117 healthy men and 173 healthy women aged 40 to 80 years [9])

Enright has pointed out that one can interpret 6MWT results by comparing the one-time distance

walked and the distance predicted by the reference equations, measured as: the percentage of

predicted value [59]. This is useful in understanding where a patient’s performance stands when

considering the variables which are responsible for the most 6MWD variation.

Morbidity and Mortality

Years of study has shown that physical fitness or aerobic capacity is a strong predictor of

morbidity and mortality [60, 61]. Based on many studies, it is widely agreed upon that the

6MWT is also a strong predictor of both [27-33].

Predictor of Morbidity

In a study by Bautmans et al. there was a significant change in the total distance walked

depending on a patient’s health status. Specifically, as patient health problems increased the total

distance they walked in the 6 minutes decreased. Because much of the variability was explained

away with their statistical methods the authors suggest that this test may be a useful indicator of

cardiovascular pathology [62].

Harada et al. showed that the 6MWT can be used as a simple measure of mobility in the

elderly. Results showed patients’ walk distances correlated strongly with their activity level and

were greater for more active patients compared to those who were less active [63]. They suggest

that 6MWT can be used as a performance-based measure of functional limitation and thus a

predictor of mobility.

It has been shown that the 6MWT can be used as an overall predictor of disability [64]. In

a study by Bean et al. it was shown that lower-extremity impairment reduced performance on the

6MWT. Using leg power and strength impairments as measurements their study of 45

community-dwelling elders with limited-mobility proved the 6MWT to be a strong predictor of

performance in the 6MWT [65] and a good predictor of disability.

Predictor of Mortality

Many studies have shown a link between 6MWT performance and mortality. Studies

showing this link have showed strong associations with certain 6MWDs and death. Although not

every study reaches the same prediction distances they all show a high risk for “low” 6MWDs.

In a study by Bittner et al. mortality rate was 10.23% in patients who walked <350m and 2.99%

in participants who walked more than 450m on 6MWT [66]. A study of patients with mild-to

moderate heart failure showed mortality rates for those patients that walked <300 meters to be

significantly higher than patients whose distance was greater than 300 [67]. In a study by

Miyamoto et al. patients with primary pulmonary hypertension patients walking <332 m had a

significantly lower survival rate than those who exceeded this distance [56].

In patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure the 6MWT was shown to be a reliable

predictor of cardiac death. Arslan and collogues showed mortality rates for patients who walked

<300 meters to be significantly higher than those whose walked distances greater than 300 (79%

vs. 7%) [16].

Maximal Exercise Testing and the 6MWT: Equal Predictors of Exercise Capacity

In exercise testing peak VO2 has been shown to be a strong indicator of some conditions,

including the severity of chronic heart failure [68]. There are several studies which show the

6MWT correlates strongly with VO2 max in patients with COPD and heart failure [5, 55, 69, 70].

Therefore when maximal testing is not possible it is reasonable to suggest that the 6MWT, a

submaximal test of functional capacity, can be a worthy substitute with equal predictive value for

this condition.

Conclusion

Overall the aim of this paper was provide a comprehensive review of the literature

surrounding the commonly used measure of functional capacity, the 6MWT. The review’s focus

was threefold: to first describe the history of the 6MWT and chronicle its advance, second to

identify its applications in the clinic, and third to determine its clinical significance by examining

the work that’s demonstrated its benefits, limitations and predictive or prognostic value. Since its

introduction the 6MWT has undergone many changes and modifications. The protocol has and

still is applied in various forms depending on the investigator or research question. Despite this

variation it is unmistakable that the test’s use in the clinic has increased because of the many

benefits it provides. Despite its current limitations the test remains quite significant and will most

likely continue to grow an objective research tool. It is likely that in the not so distance future

updated reference equations will be published and all investigators will use the ATS guidelines

both of which will reduce the test’s limitations and enhance its significance. Also as more

populations are studied and the test is used in different research questions the significance of

6MWT the scope of its predictive value will grow even more.

References

[1] Balke B. A simple field test for the assessment of physical fitness. Rep Civ Aeromed Res

Inst 1963;53:1-8.

[2] Cooper KH. A means of assessing maximal oxygen intake: correlation between field and

treadmill testing. JAMA 1968;203:201-204.

[3] McGavin CR,Gupta SP, McHardy GJ. Twelve-min walking test for assessing disability in

chronic bronchitis. Br Med J 1976;1(6013);822-3.

[4] Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM. Two-,six-, and twelve-

minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J 1982;1607;284 (6329):1607-8.

[5] Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, et al. The 6-min: a new measure of exercise

capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 132:919-923.

[6] Lipkin DP, Scriven AJ, Crake T, Poole-Wilson PA. Six minute walking test for assessing

exercise capacity in chronic heart failure. Br Med J 1986;292(6521):653-5.

[7] ATS Statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. ATS Committee on Proficiency

Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. Am J Respir Crit Care Med

2002; 166(1):111-117.

[8] Troosters T, Gosselink R, Decramer M. Six Minute walking distance in healthy elderly

subjects. Eur Respir J 1999;14(2):270-4.

[9] Enright PL, Sherrill DL. Reference equations for the six-minute walk test in healthy

adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 158(5 Pt 1):1384-1387.

[10] Gibbons WJ, Fruchter N, Sloan S, Levy RD. Reference values for a multiple repetition

6-minute walk test in healthy adults older than 20 years. J Cardiopul Rehabil 2001;

21(2):87-93.

[11] Singh SJ, Morgan MDL, Scott S, Walters D, Hardman AE. Development of a shuttle

walking test of disability in patients with chronic airways obstruction. Thorax

1992;4749:1-12.

[12] Revill SM, Morgan MDL, Singh SJ, Williams J, Hardman AE. The endurance shuttle

walk: a new field test for the assessment of endurance capacity in chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease. Thorax 1999; 54(3):212-222.

[13] Pina IL, Balady GJ, Hanson P, Labovitz AJ, Madonna DW, Myers J. Guidelines for

clinical exercise testing in laboratories: a statement for healthcare professionals from the

Committee on Exercise and Cardiac Rehabilitation, American Heart Association.

Circulation 1995;912-921.

[14] Wasserman K, Hansen JE, Sue DY, Casaburi R, Whipp BJ. Principles of exercise testing

and interpretation, 3rd

edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Williams; 1999.

[15] Peeters P, Mets. The 6-minute walk as an appropriate exercise test in elderly patients with

chronic heart failure. J Gerontol A Biol Scie Med Sci 1996. 51:M;47-51.

[16] Arslan, S., Erol., M., et al. Prognostic value of 6-minute walk test. Texas Heart Institute

Journal 2007;34:166-9.

[17] Rostagno C, Olivo G, Comeglio M, Boddi V, Banchelli M, Galanti G, Gensini GF.

(2003). Prognostic value of 6-minute walk corridor test in patients with mild to moderate

heart failure: comparison with other methods of functional evaluation. European Journal

of Heart Failure; 5:247-52.

[18] Redelmeler, D.A, Bayoumi, A.M., Goldstein, R.S., & Guyatt, G.H. (1997). Interpreting

small differences in functional status: the six minute walk test in chronic lung disease

patients. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine. 155:1278-1282.

[19] Troosters, T., Vilaro, J., Rabinovich, R., et al. (200). Physiological responses to six

minute walking test in COPD patients. Eur. Respiratory Journal. 20:564-569.

[20] Gary RA, Sueta CA, Rosenberrg B, Cheek D. Use of the 6-minute walk test for women

with diastolic heart failure. J Card Rehabil 2004;24(4):264-8.

[21] Szekey LA, Oelberg DA, Wright C, et al. Preoperative predictors of operative morbidity

and mortality in COPD patients undergoing bilateral lung volume reduction surgery.

Chest 1997;111:550-558.

[22] Kadikar, A. Maurer, J., & Kesten, S. The Six-minute walk test: a guide to assessment for

lung transplantation. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 1997.

[23] Bautmans, I., Lambert, M., Mets., T. The six-minute walk test in community dwelling

elderly: influence of health status. BMC Geriatrics 2004.

[24] Du H, Newton PJ, Salamonson Y, Carrieri-Kohlman VL, Davidson PM. A review of the

six-minute walk test: its implication as a self-administered assessment tool. European

Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 2009.

[25] Bean JF, Kiely DK, Leveille SG, Herman S, Huynh C, Fielding R, Frontera W. The 6-

minute walk test in mobility-limited elders: what is being measured? Journal of

gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002, Vol. 57A, No. 11, M751-M756.

[26] Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent

disability: consistent across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone

compared with short physical performance battery. J Gerontol Med Sci 2000;55A:M221-

M231.

[27] Bittner V, Weiner D.H., Yusuf S, Rogers W.J., McIntyre K.M., Bangdiwala S.I.,

Kronenberg J.B., Kostis J.B., Kohn R.M., Guillotte M, Greenberg B, Woods P.A.,

Bourassa M.G. Prediction of mortality and morbidity with a six minute walk test in

patients with left ventricular dysfunction. JAMA 1993. 270:1702-1707.

[28] Bautmans, I., Lambert, M., Mets., T. The six-minute walk test in community dwelling

elderly: influence of health status. BMC Geriatrics 2004.

[29] Bittner V, Weiner DH, Yusuf S, et al. Prediction of mortality and morbidity with the 6-

minute walk test in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. JAMA 1993;270:1702-

1707.

[30] Milligan NP, Havey J. Dossa A. Using a 6-min walk test to predict outcomes in patients

with left ventricular dysfunction. Rehabil Nurs 1997; 22:177-181.

[31] Cahalin LP, Mathier MA, Semigran MJ, et al. The six-minute walk test predicts peak

oxygen uptake and survival in patients with advanced heart failure. Chest

1996;110:325:332.

[32] Lucas C, Stevenson LW, Johnson W, et al. The 6-min walk and peak oxygen

consumption in advanced heart failure: aerobic capacity and survival. Am Heart J 1999;

138:618-624.

[33] Roul G, Germain P, Bareiss. Does the 6-minute walk test predict the prognosis in patients

with NYHA class II or III chronic heart failure? Am Heart J 136:449-457.

[34] Singh S. The use of field walking tests for assessment of functional capacity in patients

with chronic heart and lung disease? J Chronic Dis 1985; 38:517-524.

[35] Roomi J, Johnson MM, Waters K, Yohannes A, Helm, Connolly MJ. Respiratory

rehabilitation, exercise capacity and quality of life in chronic airways disease in old age.

Age Ageing 1996; 25(1):12-16.

[36] Enright PL, Mcburnie MA, Bittner V, Tracy RP, McNamara R, Arnold A, et al. The 6-

Minute walk test: a quick measure of functional status in elderly adults. Chest 2003;

123(2):387-398.

[37] Demers C, McKelvie RS, Negassa A, Yusuf S. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness

of the six-minute walk test in patients with heart failure. Am Heart J 2001;142(4):698-

703.

[38] Knox, AJ, Morrison JF, Muers MF. Reproducibility of walking test in chronic obstructive

airway diseases. Thorax 1988;43:388-392.

[39] Weiss RA, et al. Six minute walk test in severe COPD; reliability and effect of walking

course layout and length. Paper presented at ACCP Conference; September 2000; San

Francisco.

[40] Barthelemy JC, Geyssant A, Riffat J, Antoniadis A, Berruyer J, LaCour JR. Accuracy of

pulse oximetry during moderate exercise: a comparative study. Scan J Clin Lab Invest

1990;50:533-539.

[41] Swerts. Comparison of corridor and treadmill walking in patients with severe chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease 1990.

[42] Stevens, D, Elpern E, Sharma K, Szidon P, Ankin M, Kesten S. Comparison of hallway

and treadmill 6-minute walk tests. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;1601540-1543.

[43] Roomi J, Johnson MM, Waters K, Yohannes A, Helm, Connolly MJ. Respiratory

rehabilitation, exercise capacity and quality of life in chronic airways disease in old age.

Age Ageing 1996; 25(1):12-16.

[44] Guyatt GH, Pugsley SO, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, Berman LB, Jones NL, Fallen EL,

Taylor DW. Effect of encouragement of walking test performance. Thorax 1984;39:818-

822.

[45] Demers C, McKelvie RS, Negassa A, Yusuf S. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness

of the six-minute walk test in patients with heart failure. Am Heart J 2001;142(4):698-

703.

[46] Reybrouk, T. Clinical Usefulness and limitation of the 6-minutre walk test in patients

with cardiovascular or pulmonary disease. Chest 2003:123; 325-327.

[47] Mungall IPF, Hainsworth R. Assessment of respiratory function in patients with chronic

obstructive airways disease. Thorax 1979;34:254-258.

[48] Opasich C, Pinna GD, Mazza A, Febo O, Riccardi PG, et al. Six-minute walking

performance in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: is it a useful indicator in

clinical practice? European Heart Journal 2001;22(6):488-96.

[49] Pinna GD, Opasich C, Mazza A, Tangenti A, Maestri R, Sanarico M. Reproducibility of

the six-minute walking test in chronic heart failure patients. Stat Med 2000;19(22):3087-

94.

[50] Wu G, Sanderson B, Bittner V. The 6-minute walk test: how important is the learning

effect? Am Heart J 2003;146(1):129-33.

[51] Frost AE, Langleben D, Oudiz R, Hill N, Horn E, McLaughlin V, et al. The 6-min walk

test (6MWT) as an efficacy endpoint in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials:

demonstration of a ceiling effect. Vascul Pharmacol 2005;43(1):36-9.

[52] Reybrouk, T. Clinical usefulness and limitation of the 6-minutre walk test in patients with

cardiovascular or pulmonary disease. Chest 2003;23:325-327.

[53] Poole-Wilson PA. The six-minute walk: A simple test with clinical application. Eur

Heart J 1999; 21:507-8.

[54] Willenheimer R, Erhardt LR. Value of the 6-min walk test for assessment of severity and

prognosis of heart failure.

[55] Guyatt GH. Thompson PJ, Berman LB, et al. How should we measure function in

patients with chronic heart and lung disease? J Chronic Dis 1992; 78:102-104.

[56] Miyamoto S, Nagaya N, Satoh T, Kyotani S, Sakamaki F, Fujita M, Nakanishi N,

Miyatake K. Clinical correlates and prognostic significance of the six-minute walk test in

patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med

2000;161:487-492.

[57] Troosters T, Gosselink R, Decramer M. Six Minute walking distance in healthy elderly

subjects. Eur Respir J 1999;14(2):270-4.

[58] Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in

community-dwelling elderly people: six-minute walk test, Berg balance scale, timed up

and go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther 2002;82(2):128-37.

[59] Enright, PL. The six-minute walk test. Respir Care 2003;48(8):783-785.

[60] Sandvik L, Erikessen J, Thaulow E, Erikssen G, Mundal R, Rodahl K. Physical fitness as

a predictor of mortality among healthy, middle-aged Norweigan men. N Engl J Med

1993;328:533-537.

[61] American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand: exercise and physical activity for

older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:992-1008.

[62] Bautmans, I., Lambert, M., Mets., T. The six-minute walk test in community dwelling

elderly: influence of health status. BMC Geriatrics 2004.

[63] Harada, ND, Chiu, V, Stewart, AL. Mobility-related function in older-adults: assessment

with a 6-minute walk test. Arch Phy Med Rehabil 1999;80:837-841.

[64] Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent

disability: consistent across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone

compared with short physical performance battery. J Gerontol Med Sci 2000;55A:M221-

M231.

[65] Bean JF, Kiely DK, Leveille SG, Herman S, Huynh C, Fielding R, Frontera W. The 6-

minute walk test in mobility-limited elders: what is being measured? Journal of

gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002, Vol. 57A, No. 11, M751-M756.

[66] Bittner V, Weiner DH, Yusuf S, et al. Prediction of mortality and morbidity with the 6-

minute walk test in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. JAMA 1993;270:1702-

1707.

[67] Rostagno C, Olivo G, Comeglio M, Boddi V, Banchelli M, Galanti G, Gensini GF.

Prognostic value of 6-minute walk corridor test in patients with mild to moderate heart

failure: comparison with other methods of functional evaluation. European Journal of

Heart Failure 2003;5:247-52.

[68] Lainchbury JG, Rischards AM. Exercise testing in the assessment of chronic congestive

heart failure. Heart 2002;88(5):538-43.

[69] Faggiano P, D’ Aloia A, Gualeni A, Lavatelli A, Giordano A. Assessment of oxygen

uptake during the 6-minute walking test in patients with heart failure: preliminary

experience with a portable device. Am Heart J 1997;134(21):203-6.

[70] Mak VHF, Bugler JR, Roberts CM, et al. Effect of arterial oxygen desaturation on six

minute walk distance, perceived effort, and perceived breathlessness in patients with

airflow limitation. Thorax 1993; 48:33-38.