You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Authors’ response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional?
  1. Emmylou Beekman1,2,
  2. Ilse Mesters1,
  3. Rik Gosselink3,4,
  4. Onno C P van Schayck5,
  5. Rob A de Bie1
  1. 1 Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  2. 2 The Research Centre for Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University, Heerlen, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  4. 4 Department of Respiratory Rehabilitation and Respiratory Division, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  5. 5 Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Emmylou Beekman, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht 6200 MD, The Netherlands; E.Beekman{at}maastrichtuniversity.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206268

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank the co-chairs of the joint American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force for their comments on our paper and interest in our article on reference values for the 6-min walk test (6MWT) performed over a 10m course. In their correspondence, the shorter course length is considered as one specific protocol deviation from the ATS statement1 that does not represent a conventional 6MWT. What is the ‘conventional’ 6MWT? Fourteen years ago, the ATS guidelines were published with the advice to test on a 30m course. However, at that time some studies used other course lengths, as was mentioned in the statement.1 Since then, more studies2–4 and healthcare providers have used a shorter course length due to space limitations. Moreover, …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EB wrote the draft of the response letter. IM, RG, OCPvS and RAdB read the draft and provided the first author with commentary. After adaptations, the final version of the letter was read an approved by all authors.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles