Reference values for the six-minute walk test in healthy children and adolescents: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Abstract Objective: The aim of the study is to compare the available reference values and the six-minute walk test equations in healthy children/adolescents. Our systematic review was planned and performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We included all studies that established reference values for the six-minute walk test in healthy children/adolescents. Methods: To perform this review, a research was performed in PubMed, EMBASE (via SCOPUS) and Cochrane (LILACS), Bibliographic Index Spanish in Health Sciences, Organization Collection Pan-American Health Organization, Publications of the World Health Organization and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) via Virtual Health Library until June 2015 without language restriction. Results: The initial research identified 276 abstracts. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed and approved by both reviewers. None of the selected studies presented sample size calculation. Most of the studies recruited children and adolescents from school. Six studies reported the use of random samples. Most studies used a corridor of 30 meters. All studies followed the American Thoracic Society guidelines to perform the six-minute walk test. The walked distance ranged 159 meters among the studies. Of the 12 included studies, 7 (58%) reported descriptive data and 6 (50%) established reference equation for the walked distance in the six-minute walk test. Conclusion: The reference value for the six-minute walk test in children and adolescents ranged substantially from studies in different countries. A reference equation was not provided in all studies, but the ones available took into account well established variables in the context of exercise performance, such as height, heart rate, age and weight. Countries that did not established reference values for the six-minute walk test should be encouraged to do because it would help their clinicians and researchers have a more precise interpretation of the test.