Abstract
Objectives To identify exercise tests that are suitable for home-based or remote administration in people with chronic lung disease.
Methods Rapid review of studies that reported home-based or remote administration of an exercise test in people with chronic lung disease, and studies reporting their clinimetric properties.
Results 84 studies were included. Tests used at home were the 6-minute walk test (6MWT, 2 studies), sit-to-stand tests (STS, 5 studies), Timed Up and Go (TUG, 4 studies) and step tests (2 studies). Exercise tests administered remotely were the 6MWT (2 studies) and step test (1 study). Compared to centre-based testing the 6MWT distance was similar when performed outdoors but shorter when performed at home (2 studies). The STS, TUG and step tests were feasible, reliable (intra-class correlation coefficients >0.80), valid (concurrent and known groups validity) and moderately responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation (medium effect sizes). These tests elicited less desaturation than the 6MWT, and validated methods to prescribe exercise were not reported.
Discussion The STS, step and TUG tests can be performed at home, but do not accurately document desaturation with walking or allow exercise prescription. Patients at risk of desaturation should be prioritised for centre-based exercise testing when this is available.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
CM is partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (process number: 200042/2019-0), and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superi Brazil (CAPES) Finance Code 001. NSC holds a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (GNT 1119970).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This was a rapid review of previously published studies and no ethical approvals were required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data included in this review are from studies in the public domain.
