Ecological validity of walking capacity tests following rehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
15
03
2019
accepted:
19
07
2019
entrez:
2
8
2019
pubmed:
2
8
2019
medline:
10
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Walking capacity tests are commonly used to evaluate interventions aiming at reducing walking impairment in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). However, their ecological validity has recently been questioned. The aim of the present study was to investigate the ecological validity of the 2- and 6-minutes walking tests (2MWT and 6MWT) and the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) after 28 days of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation (MIR) in pwMS using accelerometry. PwMS wore an accelerometer on 7 consecutive days within a 14-day period prior to MIR, performed 2/6MWT and T25FW at the beginning and at the end of MIR, followed by another 7 consecutive days of accelerometry. Significant improvements in 2/6MWT and T25FW after MIR in a cohort of 76 pwMS (mean age = 47.9, SD 8.3 years) were overall correlated to a significant gain in everyday life mobility (total steps/day). However, the correlation was strongly dependent on pre-existing walking disability defined by EDSS and only pwMS with "mild" walking impairment (EDSS 2-3.5) were able to transfer benefits measurable by walking capacity tests into improved everyday life mobility, while pwMS with "moderate to severe" walking disability (EDSS 4-6.5) were not. Ecological validity of changes in walking capacity tests following MIR is strongly dependent on pre-existing walking impairment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Walking capacity tests are commonly used to evaluate interventions aiming at reducing walking impairment in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). However, their ecological validity has recently been questioned. The aim of the present study was to investigate the ecological validity of the 2- and 6-minutes walking tests (2MWT and 6MWT) and the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) after 28 days of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation (MIR) in pwMS using accelerometry.
METHODS
PwMS wore an accelerometer on 7 consecutive days within a 14-day period prior to MIR, performed 2/6MWT and T25FW at the beginning and at the end of MIR, followed by another 7 consecutive days of accelerometry.
RESULTS
Significant improvements in 2/6MWT and T25FW after MIR in a cohort of 76 pwMS (mean age = 47.9, SD 8.3 years) were overall correlated to a significant gain in everyday life mobility (total steps/day). However, the correlation was strongly dependent on pre-existing walking disability defined by EDSS and only pwMS with "mild" walking impairment (EDSS 2-3.5) were able to transfer benefits measurable by walking capacity tests into improved everyday life mobility, while pwMS with "moderate to severe" walking disability (EDSS 4-6.5) were not.
CONCLUSION
Ecological validity of changes in walking capacity tests following MIR is strongly dependent on pre-existing walking impairment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31369622
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220613
pii: PONE-D-19-07523
pmc: PMC6675072
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0220613Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Brain. 2000 May;123 ( Pt 5):1027-40
pubmed: 10775547
Neurology. 2003 Jan 14;60(1):31-6
pubmed: 12525714
Mult Scler. 2006 Oct;12(5):594-8
pubmed: 17086905
Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2007 Jul;24(3):245-53
pubmed: 17916920
Mult Scler. 2008 Apr;14(3):383-90
pubmed: 17942508
Phys Ther. 2008 Feb;88(2):176-90
pubmed: 18029390
Mult Scler. 2008 Jan;14(1):140-2
pubmed: 18089672
Neurology. 1991 Feb;41(2 ( Pt 1)):332
pubmed: 1992392
J Neurol Sci. 2010 Mar 15;290(1-2):6-11
pubmed: 20060544
Mult Scler. 2010 May;16(5):618-26
pubmed: 20207785
Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2010 Jul;3(4):229-39
pubmed: 21179614
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
Mult Scler. 2011 Oct;17(10):1269-72
pubmed: 21642370
Patient. 2011;4(3):189-201
pubmed: 21766914
Behav Med. 2011 Oct;37(4):125-31
pubmed: 22168329
Mult Scler. 2012 Jul;18(7):914-24
pubmed: 22740603
Expert Rev Neurother. 2012 Sep;12(9):1079-88
pubmed: 23039387
Acta Neurol Scand. 2013 Jun;127(6):384-90
pubmed: 23240822
Neurology. 2013 Apr 16;80(16):1509-17
pubmed: 23535489
Disabil Rehabil. 2013 May;35(9):725-31
pubmed: 23557239
Mult Scler. 2013 Nov;19(13):1784-91
pubmed: 23587605
NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(3):439-48
pubmed: 23949075
Mult Scler. 2013 Oct;19(12):1556-64
pubmed: 24048545
Neurology. 2013 Nov 19;81(21):1856-63
pubmed: 24174581
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Sep;28(7):621-31
pubmed: 24503204
Behav Med. 2014;40(1):29-33
pubmed: 24512363
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 08;9(4):e93511
pubmed: 24714028
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 16;10(4):e0123822
pubmed: 25879750
Neurol Sci. 2016 Sep;37(9):1483-90
pubmed: 27207680
Arch Neurol. 1989 Oct;46(10):1121-3
pubmed: 2803071
Mult Scler. 2017 Apr;23(5):704-710
pubmed: 28206828
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017 Nov;14(11):891-900
pubmed: 28956457
Gait Posture. 2018 Jan;59:211-216
pubmed: 29078135
Neurol Clin Pract. 2017 Aug;7(4):354-362
pubmed: 29185551
Mult Scler. 2018 Jun;24(7):886-894
pubmed: 29889008
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997 Apr;29(4):517-23
pubmed: 9107635
Can J Neurol Sci. 1998 Feb;25(1):31-8
pubmed: 9532278