Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The 6‐minute walk test and other clinical endpoints in duchenne muscular dystrophy: Reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal clinically important differences from a multicenter study

Open access
McDonald, Craig M., Henricson, Erik K., Abresch, R. Ted, Florence, Julaine, Eagle, Michelle, Gappmaier, Eduard, Glanzman, Allan M., PTC124‐GD‐007‐DMD Study Group, Spiegel, Robert, Barth, Jay, Elfring, Gary, Reha, Allen, Peltz, Stuart W.·2013·Muscle & Nerve

Abstract

Introduction: An international clinical trial enrolled 174 ambulatory males ≥5 years old with nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy (nmDMD). Pretreatment data provide insight into reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the 6‐minute walk test (6MWT) and other endpoints. Methods: Screening and baseline evaluations included the 6‐minute walk distance (6MWD), timed function tests (TFTs), quantitative strength by myometry, the PedsQL, heart rate–determined energy expenditure index, and other exploratory endpoints. Results: The 6MWT proved feasible and reliable in a multicenter context. Concurrent validity with other endpoints was excellent. The MCID for 6MWD was 28.5 and 31.7 meters based on 2 statistical distribution methods. Conclusions: The ratio of MCID to baseline mean is lower for 6MWD than for other endpoints. The 6MWD is an optimal primary endpoint for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) clinical trials that are focused therapeutically on preservation of ambulation and slowing of disease progression. Muscle Nerve 48: 357–368, 2013

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mus.23905

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
McDonald, C. M., Henricson, E. K., Abresch, R. T., Florence, J., Eagle, M., Gappmaier, E., Glanzman, A. M., PTC124‐GD‐007‐DMD Study Group, Spiegel, R., Barth, J., Elfring, G., Reha, A., & Peltz, S. W.
Venue
Muscle & Nerve
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-17
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
357-368
ISSN
  • 0148-639X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4598
OpenAlex
W1951817210
Cited by
354
References
68
FWCI
10.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The 6‐minute walk test and other clinical endpoints in duchenne muscular dystrophy: Reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal clinically important differences from a multicenter study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mus.23905
The paper
McDonald, C. M., Henricson, E. K., Abresch, R. T., Florence, J., Eagle, M., Gappmaier, E., Glanzman, A. M., PTC124‐GD‐007‐DMD Study Group, Spiegel, R., Barth, J., Elfring, G., Reha, A., & Peltz, S. W. (2013). The 6‐minute walk test and other clinical endpoints in duchenne muscular dystrophy: Reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal clinically important differences from a multicenter study. Muscle & Nerve. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23905

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.