Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of 6-Minute Walk Distance as a Surrogate End Point in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Trials

Open access
Gabler, Nicole B., French, Benjamin, Strom, Brian L., Palevsky, Harold I., Taichman, Darren B., Kawut, Steven M., Halpern, Scott D.·2012·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: Nearly all available treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been approved based on change in 6-minute walk distance (Δ6MWD) as a clinically important end point, but its validity as a surrogate end point has never been shown. We aimed to validate the difference in Δ6MWD against the probability of a clinical event in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials. Methods and Results—: First, to determine whether Δ6MWD between baseline and 12 weeks mediated the relationship between treatment assignment and development of clinical events, we conducted a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the 10 randomized placebo-controlled trials previously submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (n=2404 patients). Second, to identify a threshold effect for the Δ6MWD that indicated a statistically significant reduction in clinical events, we conducted a meta-regression among 21 drug/dose-level combinations. Δ6MWD accounted for 22.1% (95% confidence interval, 12.1%– 31.1%) of the treatment effect ( P <0.001). The meta-analysis showed an average difference in Δ6MWD of 22.4 m (95% confidence interval, 17.4–27.5 m), favoring active treatment over placebo. Active treatment decreased the probability of a clinical event (summary odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.57). The meta-regression revealed a significant threshold effect of 41.8 m. Conclusions—: Our results suggest that Δ6MWD does not explain a large proportion of the treatment effect, has only modest validity as a surrogate end point for clinical events, and may not be a sufficient surrogate end point. Further research is necessary to determine whether the threshold value of 41.8 m is valid for long-term outcomes or whether it differs among trials using background therapy or lacking placebo controls entirely.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.112.105890

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Gabler, N. B., French, B., Strom, B. L., Palevsky, H. I., Taichman, D. B., Kawut, S. M., & Halpern, S. D.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2012-07-17
Volume
126
Issue
3
Pages
349-356
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2096352797
Cited by
255
References
1
FWCI
23.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Validation of 6-Minute Walk Distance as a Surrogate End Point in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.112.105890
The paper
Gabler, N. B., French, B., Strom, B. L., Palevsky, H. I., Taichman, D. B., Kawut, S. M., & Halpern, S. D. (2012). Validation of 6-Minute Walk Distance as a Surrogate End Point in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Trials. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.112.105890

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.