ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparing hemodynamic and cardiorespiratory responses during six-minute walk and step tests in mild acute COVID-19.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The six-minute walking test (6MWT) and six-minute step test (6MST) are valuable tools for assessing functional capacity and predicting outcomes in individuals suffering from mild COVID-19. This study aims to evaluate functional capacity and oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) during both the 6MWT and 6MST, to examine hemodynamic and cardiorespiratory responses and identify predictive factors influencing performance and [Formula: see text] (mL kg⁻¹ min⁻¹). This is a cross-sectional study including adults with mild COVID-19 symptoms within 6 weeks of a positive RT-PCR test. Participants were assessed for anthropometrics, handgrip strength, physical activity levels, pulmonary function, and performance on the 6MWT/6MST. Cardiorespiratory data were collected using a portable gas analyzer. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare the two tests, and regression models were used to identify predictive factors for performance and [Formula: see text] peak (mL kg⁻¹ min⁻¹). Forty volunteers (57% female) participated, with a mean age of 35 ± 12 years and BMI of 27.55 ± 5.66 kg/m2. Mean 6MWT distance was 473 ± 97 m (82 ± 18% predicted) and mean 6MST was 144 ± 27 steps (81 ± 16% predicted). Significant differences were found in hemodynamic responses with the 6MST eliciting higher heart rate (HR; p < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (SBP; p < 0.001), and ratings of dyspnea and lower limb fatigue on the Borg scale (p < 0.001 and p = 0.015, respectively). (Regression analyses revealed factors that predicted performance and [Formula: see text] peak (mL kg⁻¹ min⁻¹) for both tests, with models explaining 46–59% of variance for the 6MST and 12–40% for the 6MWT. The 6MST and 6MWT elicit distinct physiological responses, with the 6MST imposing greater hemodynamic and cardiorespiratory responses. Pulmonary function and body composition significantly enhance predictive models for functional performance and [Formula: see text] peak (mL kg⁻¹ min⁻¹) in both tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.