Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Six minute corridor walk test as an outcome measure for the assessment of treatment in randomized, blinded intervention trials of chronic heart failure: a systematic review

Olsson, Lars G., Swedberg, Karl, Clark, Andrew L., Witte, Klaus K., Cleland, John G.F.·2005·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: The 6 min walk test (6MWT) is commonly used in clinical trials to assess treatments for heart failure, but its ability to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments is questionable. The aim of this study is to investigate, using a systematic literature review, the utility of the 6MWT as a measure of the effectiveness of treatment in randomized controlled trials of heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature search was performed using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Biological abstracts for randomized controlled trials that measured 6MWT between 1988 and 31 May 2004. A significant increase in 6MWT distance was observed in only 9 of 47 randomized controlled trials of pharmacological therapy; 2 of 6 trials of ACE-inhibitors; 3 of 17 trials of beta-blockers; 1 of 4 trials of digoxin; one trial of ibopamine; one trial of l-arginine; one trial of beriberine; and one trial showed superiority of captopril over flosequinan. A significant increase in 6MWT was observed in four out of six placebo-controlled trials of cardiac resynchronization. Smaller pharmacological trials with fewer centres were more likely to be positive; six out of nine positive pharmacological trials had four or less participating centres, raising the possibility of publication bias. Pharmacological trials including patients with more severe heart failure were more likely to show a significant improvement with therapy than trials of milder heart failure. Five out of seven pharmacological trials that reported an improvement in symptoms also reported an improvement in 6MWT distance. Of 30 pharmacological trials, 29 that reported no improvement in symptoms also reported no improvement in 6MWT. Using mean values in these trials, the age of patients appeared a more important determinant of 6MWT distance than New York Heart Association classification. CONCLUSION: The 6MWT has not yet been proven to be a robust test for the identification of effective pharmacological interventions although it appears useful for the assessment of cardiac resynchronization therapy. The results of the 6MWT were concordant with changes in symptoms, suggesting that it may be used as supportive evidence for symptom benefit. The test may be of greater value in patients with more advanced heart failure, where it may function as a maximal exercise test.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi162

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 284

Metadata

Authors
Olsson, L. G., Swedberg, K., Clark, A. L., Witte, K. K., & Cleland, J. G. F.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2005-03-17
Volume
26
Issue
8
Pages
778-793
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2122984949
Cited by
284
References
6
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Six minute corridor walk test as an outcome measure for the assessment of treatment in randomized, blinded intervention trials of chronic heart failure: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi162
The paper
Olsson, L. G., Swedberg, K., Clark, A. L., Witte, K. K., & Cleland, J. G. F. (2005). Six minute corridor walk test as an outcome measure for the assessment of treatment in randomized, blinded intervention trials of chronic heart failure: a systematic review. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi162

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.