We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Quality of the tools used to assess aerobic capacity in people with multiple sclerosis.
INTRODUCTION: Assessments of physical fitness, including exercise tolerance functions, are valuable in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Many tools with widely varying advantages and disadvantages have been used to assess physical fitness in research and clinical practice. To date, there are no recommendations regarding the best tools to use for this purpose in persons with MS. This study aims to systematically review the psychometric properties of the tools used to assess exercise tolerance functions in persons with MS, and to propose recommendations regarding the best test to use.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The literature was searched (PubMed, SPORTdiscus, PEDro, MEDLINE, Embase via Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo) to identify the tools most frequently used to assess exercise tolerance functions. These tools were systematically analyzed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Forty-eight articles were selected. Six tools or categories of tools concerning exercise tolerance functions were identified. Whole-body exercise tests combined with gas exchange analysis had the best psychometric properties (e.g., validity, reliability) for assessing aerobic capacity in pwMS with mild to moderate disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≤6.5). Although sometimes used for this purpose, walk tests seemed to assess walking performance rather than exercise tolerance functions. The psychometric properties of other tests had scarcely been studied.
CONCLUSIONS: The tools vary widely in quality. Whole-body exercise testing combined with gas exchange analysis has the best psychometric properties of the reviewed tools. If gas exchange analysis is feasible, whole-body exercise tests combined with gas exchange analysis, with maximal exercise effort for pwMS with EDSS ≤4 and submaximal exercise effort for pwMS with EDSS ≥4.5, should be recommended to assess exercise tolerance, both in research and in clinical practice. A selection algorithm is proposed.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The literature was searched (PubMed, SPORTdiscus, PEDro, MEDLINE, Embase via Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo) to identify the tools most frequently used to assess exercise tolerance functions. These tools were systematically analyzed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Forty-eight articles were selected. Six tools or categories of tools concerning exercise tolerance functions were identified. Whole-body exercise tests combined with gas exchange analysis had the best psychometric properties (e.g., validity, reliability) for assessing aerobic capacity in pwMS with mild to moderate disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≤6.5). Although sometimes used for this purpose, walk tests seemed to assess walking performance rather than exercise tolerance functions. The psychometric properties of other tests had scarcely been studied.
CONCLUSIONS: The tools vary widely in quality. Whole-body exercise testing combined with gas exchange analysis has the best psychometric properties of the reviewed tools. If gas exchange analysis is feasible, whole-body exercise tests combined with gas exchange analysis, with maximal exercise effort for pwMS with EDSS ≤4 and submaximal exercise effort for pwMS with EDSS ≥4.5, should be recommended to assess exercise tolerance, both in research and in clinical practice. A selection algorithm is proposed.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app