56 and 93% of the difference scores within the limits of agreement: −2.89 to 18.67%pred), as presented in Figure 2. On average, patients walked 1.9 m less in the second test on the 10 m course compared with the first (p > 0.1) SP600125 mouse and 9.5 m more in the second test on the 30 m course compared with the first (p > 0.1). Regarding the test-retest reliability for the 6MWD on the 10 m course an ICCconsistency of 0.98 was found (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99 and 95% of the difference scores within the limits of agreement: −42.33 m to 41.56 m). The results of this study are of considerable importance in physiotherapy settings in which the 6MWT is conducted. Course length substantially

influences the performance of patients with COPD in a 6MWT, and the results of the test conducted on a 10 m course versus a course of 30 metres or longer are not interchangeable. Consequently, using existing reference equations to established %pred values for the 6MWT causes an overestimation of the functional capacity of a COPD patient. The shorter 6MWD achieved on a 10 m course might be explained by the increased number

of turns that are involved in a shorter walking course (Enright 2003, Ng et al 2011, Ng et al 2013). Moreover, Najafi and colleagues (2009) showed that older people may choose a higher gait speed strategy over a longer walk distance (> 20 m), but a slower gait speed strategy over a shorter walk distance (< 10 m). Finally, patient-specific altered gait mechanisms (eg, limping, shuffling, shorter step length, and slower walk speed)

may contribute to the difference in 6MWDs over the two course lengths Selleck Cabozantinib (Pepera et al 2012, Yentes et al 2011). Our findings contrasted with those of Sciurba and colleagues (2003) who found no statistically significant effect of course length on 6MWD. However, this study compared different course lengths between different below centres retrospectively. The order of the tests was not randomised (ie, each subject was measured on only one course length), only people with severe emphysema were included, and the test courses were all longer than 17 m (Sciurba et al 2003). The impact of the much shorter 10 m course might be the reason for the statistical significance of the difference. Not only is the difference of 49.5 m statistically significant, this value is also large enough to be of practical relevance. When the difference exceeds the minimum clinically important differences (MCID), concerns are warranted. Recent reported MCIDs for the 6MWD in patients with COPD are 35 m (95% CI 30 to 42) by Puhan and colleagues (2008) and 25 m (95% CI 20 to 61) by Holland and colleagues (2010), both on a 30 m course. Our study shows that the average difference in walk distance, singly depending on the length of the test course, exceeds the MCID (80% of the individual cases, as presented in Figure 1). The difference in the distance achieved between a 10 m and 30 m course of 49.