Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Functional capacity, physical activity and muscle strength assessment of individuals with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties

  • Catherine L Granger1, 2Email author,
  • Christine F McDonald2, 3,
  • Selina M Parry1, 4,
  • Cristino C Oliveira1 and
  • Linda Denehy1, 2
BMC Cancer201313:135

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-135

Received: 4 October 2012

Accepted: 7 March 2013

Published: 20 March 2013

Abstract

Background

The measurement properties of instruments used to assess functional capacity, physical activity and muscle strength in participants with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have not been systematically reviewed.

Method

Objectives: To identify outcome measures used to assess these outcomes in participants with NSCLC; and to evaluate, synthesise and compare the measurement properties of the outcome measures identified. Data Sources: A systematic review of articles using electronic databases MEDLINE (1950–2012), CINAHL (1982–2012), EMBASE (1980–2012), Cochrane Library (2012), Expanded Academic ASAP (1994–2012), Health Collection Informit (1995–2012) and PEDRO (1999–2012). Additional studies were identified by searching personal files and cross referencing. Eligibility Criteria for Study Selection: Search one: studies which assessed functional capacity, physical activity or muscle strength in participants with NSCLC using non-laboratory objective tests were included. Search two: studies which evaluated a measurement property (inter- or intra-rater reliability; measurement error; criterion or construct validity; or responsiveness) in NSCLC for one of the outcome measures identified in search one. Studies published in English from 1980 were eligible. Data Extraction and Methodological Quality Assessment: data collection form was developed and data extracted. Methodological quality of studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the 4-point COSMIN checklist.

Results

Thirteen outcome measures were identified. Thirty-one studies evaluating measurement properties of the outcome measures in participants with NSCLC were included. Functional capacity was assessed using the six- and twelve-minute walk tests; incremental- and endurance-shuttle walk tests; and the stair-climbing test. Criterion validity for three of these measures was established in NSCLC but not the reliability or responsiveness. Physical activity was measured using accelerometers and pedometers. Only the construct validity for accelerometers and pedometers was reported. Muscle strength was measured using hand-held dynamometry, hand-grip dynamometry, manual muscle test, one-repetition maximum and the chair-stand test, however only two studies reported reliability and measurement error and one study reported construct validity.

Conclusion

Currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the measurement properties of commonly used outcome measures in NSCLC participants, particularly reliability, measurement error and responsiveness. Further research needs to be conducted to determine the most suitable outcome measures for use in trials involving NSCLC participants.

Keywords

NSCLC Functional capacity Strength Physical activity Measurement properties Systematic review

Background

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with significant disease burden, impaired physical status and diminished physical activity [1, 2]. Due to the disease and treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and or radiotherapy) adverse physiological and psychological effects are prevalent in NSCLC, particularly exercise intolerance, weakness and impaired gas exchange and commonly a cycle of functional decline ensues [1]. Increasingly exercise interventions targeted at preventing the functional decline associated with NSCLC or improving the physical status prior to or after cancer treatment are the focus of research trials [3]. Three commonly used endpoints are functional capacity “the maximal capacity of an individual to perform aerobic work or maximal oxygen consumption” [4]; physical activity “any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure” [5]; and muscle strength “the maximum voluntary force or torque brought to bear on the environment under a given set of test conditions” [6]. The gold standard instruments (outcome measures) to assess these outcomes are laboratory based, which are not always feasible for use in research or clinical practice [7]. Therefore, a wide variety of instruments have been used to assess changes in these outcomes in the NSCLC literature.

When selecting the most appropriate outcome measure the clinician or researcher should consider the measurement properties established for their population of interest. Reliability determines the ability of an instrument to obtain data which are accurate, consistent and have small measurement errors when the instrument is repeated longitudinally (intra-rater reliability) or by multiple examiners (inter-rater reliability) [8, 9]. Validity determines the ability of an instrument to measure what it is intended to measure, that is, how well the data relate to data obtained from the gold standard instrument (criterion-concurrent validity); how well data predict an outcome (criterion-predictive validity); or how well an instrument obtains data, as hypothesised, when compared to an instrument measuring a similar construct (construct validity) [8, 9]. Responsiveness determines the ability of an instrument to detect meaningful change over time [9].Whilst a test may have excellent reliability, validity and responsiveness in one clinical population, these findings cannot always be extrapolated to other populations [9].

This review is designed to capture outcome measures applicable for use in the clinical setting by health professionals or researchers. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines have been followed to report this review [8, 10, 11].

Objectives

  1. 1.

    To identify non-laboratory outcome measures which have been used to assess functional capacity, physical activity or muscle strength in participants with NSCLC;

     
  2. 2.

    To evaluate, synthesise and compare the measurement properties established in participants with NSCLC for each of the outcome measures identified.

     

Method

Protocol

No protocol had been previously published for this review.

The search for this systematic review was conducted in two parts. Search 1 identified studies which used an outcome measure to assess functional capacity, physical activity or muscle strength in participants with NSCLC. This initial search allowed a list of outcome measures to be generated. Search 2 identified studies which examined the measurement properties of the outcome measures identified in Search 1, specifically in participants with NSCLC.

Search 1: outcome measures

Eligibility criteria

Studies

This review considered any type of quantitative study design as defined by the National Health and Medical Research Council Classification [12]. Full manuscripts published in English in a peer reviewed journal from 1980 onwards were eligible.

Participants

Participants of any age, diagnosed with NSCLC, at any stage of the disease were considered. NSCLC was defined as: carcinoma of the lung including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and large cell carcinoma [13]. At least five participants with NSCLC were required for the study to be included. Studies which included mixed cancer cohorts were also eligible providing at least five participants were diagnosed with NSCLC. The authors were contacted for studies which did not specify the type of lung cancer to confirm the number of participants with NSCLC. Studies without original participant data (such as reviews, narratives or editorials) were excluded.

Outcomes

Outcomes of interest were objective tests which, based on face validity, aimed to measure functional capacity, physical activity or muscle strength in the clinical setting. Outcome measures conducted in a laboratory were excluded. Patient-reported outcome measures, such as questionnaires, were excluded.

Information sources, search and study selection

Prior to conducting this review the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstract of Review of Effectiveness DARE), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the COSMIN list of systematic reviews of measurement properties [14] and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [15] were searched to ensure no similar reviews had been published. Seven electronic databases were searched by one reviewer (CG) using a systematic, comprehensive and reproducible search strategy to identify all published studies (Additional file 1). Databases were accessed via The University of Melbourne and Austin Health, Australia, with the last search run on 4-October-2012.

Search terms used were: lung cancer, NSCLC, fitness, exercise, exercise capacity, functional capacity, function, acceleromet*, physical activity monitor*, global positioning system, strength, walk*, ambulat*, pedometer*, gait, outcome, assessment, test*, functional assessment, outcome assessment, exercise test, treatment outcome, data collection. A standardised eligibility assessment was performed by two independent reviewers (CG, SP) (Additional file 1). All studies identified by the search strategy were assessed based on title/abstract for eligibility. If there was insufficient information to include/exclude a study, full-text was retrieved. Consensus was required by both reviewers. Full-text of all relevant studies was obtained and read to ensure the inclusion criteria were met. Disagreements were settled by a third independent reviewer (LD). If there was insufficient information to include/exclude an article, the authors were contacted where possible. At each assessment stage agreement between reviewers was estimated with percentage agreement and the Kappa statistic using SPSS for Windows statistical software package (IBM® SPSS® Statistics Version20.0.0) [16]. All references were stored in Endnote software 2010 versionX4.

Data collection process

A data collection form was specifically developed and used to extract data from studies by one reviewer (CG) and a second reviewer cross-checked extracted data (SP). To avoid double counting data, multiple reports on the same patient group were identified by juxtaposing study details. Collected data were stored in Microsoft(R) Office Excel(R)2007.

Search 2: measurement properties

Eligibility criteria

Studies

Studies which aimed to develop an outcome measure or evaluate the measurement properties of an outcome measure identified in Search 1 were eligible. Only studies published in a peer reviewed journal were included. Conference abstracts or studies not published in a peer reviewed journal were excluded due to the inability to effectively evaluate risk of bias of the individual study. Only studies published from 1 January 1980 that were available in English were eligible.

Participants

Participants of any age, diagnosed with NSCLC, at any stage of the disease were considered. NSCLC was defined as: carcinoma of the lung including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and large cell carcinoma [13]. At least five participants with NSCLC were required for the study to be included. Studies which included mixed cancer cohorts were also eligible providing at least five participants were diagnosed with NSCLC. The authors were contacted for studies which did not specify the type of lung cancer to confirm the number of participants with NSCLC. Studies without original participant data (such as reviews, narratives or editorials) were excluded.

Outcomes

Outcomes of interest were the measurement properties: reliability (inter- or intra-rater), measurement error, criterion validity (concurrent or predictive), construct validity (hypothesis testing) and responsiveness of outcome measures identified in Search 1 [8]. Studies validating an alternative test against an outcome measure of interest (which provide indirect evidence for validity) and longitudinal studies (which provide indirect evidence for responsiveness) were excluded because such studies have not specifically formulated or tested hypotheses about the measurement properties [8]. Studies evaluating a battery measure including a relevant sub-component were also excluded as they are designed to be used in their entirety.

Information sources, search and data extraction

Four electronic databases were searched by one reviewer (CG) using a systematic, comprehensive and reproducible search strategy (Figure 1). The last search was run on 4-October-2012. A previously published search filter was used (sensitivity 97.4%; precision 4.4%) (Additional file 2) [17]. No publication date or language restrictions were imposed on the search. The study selection and data collection processes followed were the same as described for Search 1. Data items extracted were adapted from the COSMIN generalizability checklist [10].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2407-13-135/MediaObjects/12885_2012_Article_3798_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Flow diagram of measurement properties study selection process – Search 2. Abbreviations: 1RM, one repetition maximum; 6MWT, six-minute walk test; 12MWT, twelve-minute walk test; Acc, accelerometer; CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; CR, cross referencing; CST, chair-stand test; ESWT, endurance-shuttle walk test; EMBASE, the Excerpta Medica Database; excl, excluded; HHD, hand-held dynamometry; HGD, hand-grip dynamometry; ISWT, incremental-shuttle walk test; MMT, manual muscle test; n, number; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OM, outcome measure; Pedom, pedometer; S1, search from part one; SCT, stair-climb test.

Risk of bias of studies

Two independent reviewers (CG, CO) evaluated risk of bias using the 4-point COSMIN checklist [18]. This checklist was originally developed to assess the methodological quality of patient-reported outcome measures however it has also been suggested for use to assess the quality of non-patient reported outcome measures [10]. Four items from the checklist (internal consistency, structural validity, cross-cultural validity and content validity) are only applicable to questionnaires and were therefore not assessed [19]. Questions for remaining items (reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, criterion validity and responsiveness) were scored on a 4-point scale. The overall score for each item was obtained by using the lowest score (excellent, good, fair or poor) recorded for any question within the item, as recommended by the COSMIN scoring system [18]. Reviewer agreement was estimated with percentage agreement and the Kappa statistic [16].

Results

Search 1: outcome measures

The search of seven electronic databases and cross referencing identified 6,398 studies. Assessment of title/abstract and full text results in 88 articles using 13 different outcome measures being included (Figure 1; Additional file 1). A list of outcome measures was generated (Table 1). Almost perfect agreement between reviewers of potentially relevant titles/abstracts (CG, SP) (97.0%, Kappa=0.93) and full-text articles (CG, SP) (94.5%, Kappa=0.82) was obtained [16]. The third reviewer (LD) was consulted twice. Twenty-two authors were contacted to clarify the cancer type, 13 responded. In ten cases the lung cancer type could not be confirmed and these studies were excluded.
Table 1

Synthesis of evidence regarding measurement properties: comparison of outcome measures

Outcome measure

Reliability, measurement error and responsiveness

Criterion concurrent validity (gold standard)

Criterion predictive validity

Construct validity (hypothesis testing)

Functional capacity

    

6-minute walk test

x

x

8 studies [2227, 3941], predicts: survival, post-op outcomes (complications, LOS, 6MWT, HRQoL) and development of RP

1 study [26, 27], strongly correlated with RFT

12-minute walk test

x

x

x

x

Incremental-shuttle walk test

x

1 study [30], strongly correlated with CPET

2 studies [30, 64], predicts: survival and post-op outcomes

3 studies [30, 44, 64], moderately correlated with muscle strength; little, moderate and strong correlation with RFT; little correlation with mastery questionnaire

Endurance-shuttle walk test

x

x

x

x

Stair-climb test

x

1 study [29], strongly correlated with CPET

13 studies [21, 22, 3239, 4143], predicts: post-op outcomes (complications, LOS, cost) and survival

2 studies [20, 31], strong correlation between VO2peak and altitude reached; direct association between pre and post-op SCT results

Physical activity

    

Accelerometer

x

x

x

3 studies [4651], strongly correlated with estimated EE and sleep; moderately correlated with depression, HRQoL and PS

Pedometer

x

x

x

1 study [53], moderately correlated with CPET

Muscle strength

    

Hand-held dynamometry

x

x

x

x

Hand-held dynamometry with pulley force sensor

1 study [52], very good intra-rater reliability; large SEM

x

x

x

Hand-grip dynamometry

1 study [28], moderate intra-rater reliability

x

x

x

Manual-muscle test

x

x

x

x

One-repetition maximum

x

x

x

x

Chair-stand test

x

x

x

1 study [53], moderately correlated with PS and fatigue

Abbreviations: 6MWT, six-minute walk test; CPET, cardio-pulmonary exercise testing; EE, energy expenditure; HRQoL, health related quality of life; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; LOS, length of hospital stay; post-op, post-operative; pre-op, pre-operative; PS, Performance Status; RFT, respiratory function tests; RP, radiation pneumonitis; SCT, stair-climb test; SEM, standard error of measurement; VO 2 peak, peak oxygen consumption.

x = not assessed.

Search 2: measurement properties

Study selection

The search identified 375 studies of which 34 articles (31 studies) were included (Figure 1). Almost perfect agreement was obtained between reviewers (CG, SP) for titles/abstracts (96%, Kappa=0.92) and substantial agreement was obtained for full-text articles (90%, Kappa=0.78) [16]. Twelve authors were contacted to clarify the cancer type, nine responded. In seven cases the lung cancer type could not be confirmed and these studies were excluded.

Study characteristics

Table 2 summarises the 31 prospective observational studies. The majority of studies included only participants with NSCLC (n=18, 58%). Studies had a mean (standard deviation [SD]) sample size of 130 (146) participants (range 12–640). Outcome measures were longitudinally repeated in 25% of studies: before and after surgery (n=5, 16%) [2024], chemotherapy (n=1, 3%) [25] and radiotherapy (n=2, 6%) [2628] (Table 3).
Table 2

Study characteristics – part 2

Author, yr location

n

Gender M/F

Age mean (SD) yrs

OM

Setting (n)% / method of pt selection

Cancer type (n)%

Cancer stage (n)%

Cancer treatment at baseline time-point (n)%

Functional capacity

        

Jones 2012 USA [40]

118

71/47

61 ± 10

6MWT

Health system / consecutive

NSCLC

IIIB, IV, recurrent IV

Chemo (70) 59%; RT (10) 8%; post-op (27) 23%; post-chemo (55) 47%; post-RT (54) 46%

Pancieri 2010 Brazil [22]

40

22/18

48 ± 16

6MWT; SCT

Hospital / consecutive

NSCLC (33) 82.5%; other LC (2) 5%; benign (5) 12.5%

NR

Pre-op LR

Kasymjanova 2009 Canada [25]

64

29/35

62.0 ± 10.8

6MWT

Outpt clinic / consecutive

NSCLC

III (8) 12%; IV (56) 87%

Pre-chemo

Mao 2007* Miller 2005 USA [26, 27]

53

28/25

64 (range 45–81)

6MWT

Hospital/ sample part of larger prospective trial

NSCLC (39) 74%; SCLC (12) 23%; meso (1) 2%; lung met (1) 2%

NSCLC only: I – II (4) 8%; III-IV (41) 77%; recurrent (8) 15%

Pre- RT (17) 32%; pre-chemo-RT (36) 68%; prior chemo (33) 62%;

Saad 2007 Brazil [24]

36

20/16

Median 55.5 ± 13.4

6MWT

Hospital / consecutive

NSCLC (26) 72%; lung met (8) 22%; sarcoma (2) 6%

NR

Pre-op LR

Parsons 2003 Canada [39]

70

40/30

65 (range 29–83)

6MWT SCT

Hospital / convenience

NSCLC (55) 79%; pulmonary met (11) 16%; meso (2) 3%; benign (2) 3%

NR

Pre-op LR

Pierce 1994 Australia [23]

54

54/0

67 ± 7

6MWT

Hospital / consecutive

LC (including NSCLC)

NR

Pre-op LR

Holden 1992 USA [41]

16

13/3

68 ± 9.3

6MWT; SCT

Hospital

NSCLC (15) 94%; SCLC (1) 6%

I (10) 62%; II (3) 19%; III (2) 12%; IV (1) 6%

Pre-op LR

England 2012 UK [44]

41

21/20

64 ± 8

ISWT

Outpt clinic

NSCLC (26) 63%; meso (11) 27%; SCLC (4) 10%

Local (21) 51%; advanced (20); 49%

Post pall-chemo (26) 63%; post pall-RT (10) 24%; post-RT (1) 2%

Win 2006 UK [30]

125

81/44

68.8 ± 7.7

ISWT

Consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Win 2004 UK [64]

111

71/40

69 (range 42–85)

ISWT

Outpt clinic

NSCLC (107) 96%; miscellaneous (4) 4%

I-IIIA

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2012 Italy [43]

282

218/64

68.0 ± 9.8

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

I (118) 42%; other (164) 58%

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2010 Italy [31]

109

83/26

66.6 ± 11.1

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2008a Italy [34]

536

426/110

67 ± 9

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

I (206) 38% ; > I (330) 62%

Pre-op LR (536) 100%; chemo (56) 10%

Brunelli 2008b Italy [33]

640

NR

66.7 ± 9.3

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR (640) 100%; neoadjuvant chemo (100) 16%

Koegelenberg 2008 South Africa [29]

44

31/13

47.6 ± 12.5

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC (13) 29%; benign (31) 70%

NR

Pre-op LR

Nikolic 2008 Croatia [36]

101

82/19

61.1 ± 8.4

SCT

Hospital / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2007 Italy [20]

200

NR

66.8 ± 9.1

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR (200) 100%; neoadjuvant chemo (19) 9.5%

Toker 2007 Turkey [37]

150

127/23

59.3 ± 10.3 (gp 1) 60.7 ± 10.9 (gp 2)

SCT

University hospital / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2005 Italy [42]

391

309/82

69.1 ± 8.3 (gp 1) 67.0 ± 9.0 (gp 2)

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2004 Italy [35]

109

NR

75.2 ± 3.0

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

I (23) 21% ; > I (86) 79%

Pre-op lobectomy

Brunelli 2003 Italy [21]

227

NR

66.4 ± 9.1 (gp 1) 66.8 ± 8.1 (gp 2)

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Brunelli 2002 Italy [32]

160

128/32

66.2 ± 9.6

SCT

Tertiary referral centre / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Pate 1996 USA [38]

12

10/2

63.6 ± 4.9

SCT

Three university hospitals / consecutive

NSCLC (7) 58%; NR (5) 42%

I (5) 42%; III (2) 17%; NR (5) 42%

Pre-op LR

Physical activity

        

Maddocks 2012 UK [47]

84

54/30

66 ± 9

Acc

Outpt clinic

NSCLC (71) 84%; SCLC (8) 9%; meso (5) 6%

IIIB (43) 51%; IV (41) 49%

Palliative Rx

Grutsch 2011a, 2011b; Du-Quiton 2010 USA [4850]

84

65/19

62 (range 40–94)

Acc

Hospital inpt (42) 50%; home (42) 50%

NSCLC

II (1) 1%; III (18) 21%; IV (65) 77%

Pre-chemo (84) 100%; prior Rx (31) 37%

Maddocks 2010 UK [46]

60

40/20

68 ± 9

Acc

Outpt clinic

NSCLC (53) 88%: meso (5) 8%; GI (2) 3%

Local (35) 58%; advanced (25) 42%

NR

Novoa 2011 Spain [51]

38

30/8

62.8 ± 10.1

Pedom

Output clinic / consecutive

NSCLC

NR

Pre-op LR

Muscle strength

        

Trutschnigg 2008 Canada [28]

74

48/26

61.5 ± 13.1

HGD

Hospital and laboratory

NSCLC; GI

Advanced

NR

Brown 2005 UK [53]

53

30/23

Median 64 (range 43–81)

HGD CST

Palliative care centre x 2 and hospital

Gp1: healthy controls (15) 100% Gp2: cancer: NSCLC (29) 76%; SCLC (6) 16%; no histology LC (3) 8%

Locally advanced (20) 53%; IV (18) 47%

NR

Knols 2002 Switzerland [52]

40

27/13

49.4 ± 14.8

HHD+ pulley

Hospital inpt / convenience

NSCLC (7) 17.5%; other LC (3) 7.5%; haem (20) 50%; sarcoma (5) 12.5%; seminoma (3) 7.5%; other (2) 5%

I-IV

Chemo

Abbreviations: 6MWT, six-minute walk test; Acc, accelerometer; ca, cancer; chemo, chemotherapy; CST, chair-stand test; F, female; gp, group; gyn, gynaecological; haem, haematological; GI, gastro-intestinal; HHD, hand-held dynamometry; HGD, hand-grip dynamometry; HT, hormone therapy; ISWT, incremental shuttle walk test; inpt, inpatient; LC, lung cancer; LR, lung resection; M, male; meso, mesothelioma; met, metastasis; n, number of participants; NR, not reported; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OM, outcome measure; outpt; outpatient; pall, palliative; pedom, pedometer; PFS, pulley-force sensor; post-op, post-operative; pre-op, pre-operative; pt, participant; RT, radiotherapy; Rx, treatment; stair, stair-climbing test; SCLC, small cell lung cancer; SCT, stair-climb test; SD, standard deviation; wks, weeks; yr, year published; yrs, years.

* data presented from most recent publication.

Table 3

Description of outcome measures used

Author, yr

6MWT

OM procedure referenced

 

Encouragement standardised

 

Number of repeat Ax in testing session

  

Jones 2012 [40]

Yes [50]

 

NR

 

NR

  

Pancieri 2010 [22]

No

 

‘encouraged walking’

 

NR

  

Kasymjanova 2009 [25]

Yes [50, 67]

 

NR

 

1 x practice 1 x actual (on different days)

  

Mao 2007, Miller 2005 [26, 27]

Yes [20]

 

NR

 

NR

  

Saad 2007 [24]

Yes [50]

 

NR

 

NR

  

Parsons 2003 [39]

Yes [34, 6872]

 

Yes

 

1 x practice, 1 x actual

  

Pierce 1994 [23]

Yes [73]

 

NR

 

3 (best value used)

  

Holden 1992 [41]

No

 

NR

 

2 (15-30 min interval)

  

ISWT

OM procedure referenced

 

Encouragement standardised

 

No of repeat Ax in testing session

 

Additional description

England 2012 [44]

Yes [59]

 

NR

 

1 x practice, 1 x actual

 

Participants wore COSMED K4 b2 system (COSMED, Italy) to measure HR, VE and VO2 throughout test

Win 2006; 2004 [30, 64]

Yes [59]

 

NR

 

1

 

HR and SpO2 monitored and recorded at 30 second intervals throughout test

SCT

Equipment

Monitoring during test

Intensity

Outcome

Number of repeat Ax in testing session

Experience of assessors

Additional description

Brunelli 2012, 2010, 2008a, 2008b, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 [20–21, 31, 32–35, 42–43,]

16 flights x 11 steps (0.155 m height)

Continuous verbal interaction to Ax SOB/ symptoms; HR; SpO2

Pace of pt choice, asked to climb max no steps and stop for exhaustion, limiting SOB, leg fatigue or chest pain

No steps and time taken, minimum value SpO2, exercise oxygen desaturation (= fall SpO2 < 90% or fall >4%)

1

Physician

Calculations from test:

       

• Work = (step height in meters x steps per min x body weight in kg x 0.1635)[74]

       

• VO2max (ml/min) = 5.8 x weight in kg + 151 + 10.1 x work) [74]

       

• VO2max corrected for body surface area (ml/min2) = VO2max / max HR

Pancieri 2010 [22]

6 flights x 12 steps (16.9 cm height), 30° incline

HR, SpO2

Climb all steps in the shortest possible time with verbal encouragement between flights. Testing stopped for fatigue, limiting SOB, thoracic pain or exhaustion

Time taken

1

  

Koegelenberg 2008 [29]

12 flights x 10 steps (3.48 m b/t floors)

HR, SpO2

Pt asked to climb ‘as fast and as high’ as they possibly could to a max elevation of 20 m

Altitude, time taken, speed of ascent

NR

NR

Stair climb considered completed if pt rested or more than 3 seconds or reached 20 m height Allowed to use rail only for balance

Nikolic 2008 [36]

92 steps (0.15 m height)

HR, SpO2 (measured every 20 steps)

Pace of pt choice, asked to climb max no steps and stop for exhaustion, limiting SOB, leg fatigue or chest pain

No steps, time taken

1

Physician

Pt instructed not to use hand-rail

Toker 2007 [37]

20 steps per flight (15 cm height)

HR, SpO2

Pt motivated to do their best and motivation

SpO2 (pre, post, change), HR (pre, post, change), time taken

2

Resident doctor

 

Pate 1996 [38]

21 steps per flight (17.5 cm height)

HR, SpO2

Moderate pace of pts choice, encouraged to exercise to a symptom-limited max and complete the flight of stairs they were on if possible

No steps, time taken, altitude (m), reason for stopping

1

NR

Test considered completed as soon as patient stopped for any reason Pt instructed not to use hand-rail

Holden 1992 [41]

11 steps per flight (0.17 m height)

SpO2

Own pace

Altitude, time taken

1

Therapist

Calculations from test:

       

• Work = step height x steps per min x weight in kg x 0.1635

       

• VO2 ml/min = 5.8 x weight in kg + 151 + (10.1 x work)

Physical activity

Equipment

 

Location of monitoring

Outcome

Duration of Ax

Position of sensor

 

Maddocks 2012 [47]

Uni-axial accelerometer ActivPALTM monitor (PAL Technologies Ltd., UK)

Home environment

Mean daily step count, number of sit-to-stand transitions, time in hrs spent sitting/lying, upright standing and upright stepping

7 days (6 full days of data)

Mid-third of anterior thigh of pts chosen leg

  

Grutsch 2011a, 2011b; Du-Quiton 2010 [4850]

Actigraph Piezoelectric Accelerometer (Ambulatory Monitoring Inc., AMI, USA)

Group 1 (inpt) and group 2 (home environment)

Mean duration daytime activity (no of vertical/horizontal accelerations per min)

3-7 days

Non-dominant wrist

  

Novoa 2011 [51]

OMROM Walking Style Pro® pedometer

Home environment

Mean daily no total and aerobic steps; mean daily distance walked (km); mean daily time of aerobic activity (min)

Daytime only, daily Ax while waiting for surgery

Pedometer attached to waist band or belt

  

Maddocks 2010 [46]

Uni-axial accelerometer ActivPALTM monitor (PAL Technologies Ltd., UK)

Home environment

Mean daily step count and estimate energy expenditure (METh); acceptability (non-compliance in hours); optimal duration of monitoring

7 days (6 full days of data)

Mid-third of anterior thigh of dominant leg

  

Physical activity

Equipment

 

Location of monitoring

Outcome

Duration of Ax

Position of sensor

 

Maddocks 2012 [47]

Uni-axial accelerometer ActivPALTM monitor (PAL Technologies Ltd., UK)

Home environment

Mean daily step count, number of sit-to-stand transitions, time in hrs spent sitting/lying, upright standing and upright stepping

7 days (6 full days of data)

Mid-third of anterior thigh of pts chosen leg

  

Grutsch 2011a, 2011b; Du-Quiton 2010 [4850]

Actigraph Piezoelectric Accelerometer (Ambulatory Monitoring Inc., AMI, USA)

Group 1 (inpt) and group 2 (home environment)

Mean duration daytime activity (no of vertical/horizontal accelerations per min)

3-7 days

Non-dominant wrist

  

Novoa 2011 [51]

OMROM Walking Style Pro® pedometer

Home environment

Mean daily no total and aerobic steps; mean daily distance walked (km); mean daily time of aerobic activity (min)

Daytime only, daily Ax while waiting for surgery

Pedometer attached to waist band or belt

  

Maddocks 2010 [46]

Uni-axial accelerometer ActivPALTM monitor (PAL Technologies Ltd., UK)

Home environment

Mean daily step count and estimate energy expenditure (METh); acceptability (non-compliance in hours); optimal duration of monitoring

7 days (6 full days of data)

Mid-third of anterior thigh of dominant leg

  

Muscle strength

Equipment

Muscle group movement

Participant position

No of assessors

Number of repeat Ax in testing session

Experience of assessors

Additional description

Trutschnigg 2008 [28]

Jamar HGD (Sammons Preston, Bolingbrook), position 3 on handle

Grip

Sitting, feet on ground shoulder width apart, Elb 90 ° F, wrist 0°, arm on arm rest [75]

NR

1-2 x practice 2 x 3reps actual (mean value used)

NR

Dominant hand Patient instructed when to start and stop contraction with a 3 second contraction time No encouragement

Brown 2005 [53]

Square design chair with firm seat 43 cm height and arm rests

Sit to stand

Seated

NR

NR

NR

Pt asked to rise from seated position to fully upright position as fast as they could, if possible without using arm rests

Knols 2002 [52]

Mecmesin FB50K pull-gauge HHD, Mecmesin, England

Elb E, Knee E

1. Supine, Elb 90 °F, upper edge pull- attachment perpendicular to ulnar side of forearm distal to caput ulnae, non-elastic belt over ASIS stabilised pt on table

2 (random order) 30 min interval

6 x practice 3 x actual (60 second interval)

Physiotherapist

Dominant UL and LL Ax – identified by asking participant to throw a ball and kick a ball (preferred stance leg chosen) Figures also provided for both testing positions ‘Make’ test used Pt asked to increase force over 2 seconds and maintain for another 5 seconds

   

2. sitting edge of table upright no back support, knee 90 °F, stabilise trunk by grasping table, lower edge pull-attachment perpendicular to ant surface tibia, distal to end med mall

    

Abbreviations: 1RM, one repetition maximum; 6MWT, six-minute walk test; ant, anterior; ASIS, spinae iliacae ant superiorum; ATS, American Thoracic Society; Ax, assessment; bt, between; cm, centimeters; dyn, dynamometer; E, extension; Elb, elbow; F, flexion; HHD, hand held dynamometer; HGD, hand grip dynamometer; HR, heart rate; hrs, hours; ISWT, incremental shuttle walk test; kg, kilograms; km, kilometers; L, left; LL, lower limb; m, meters; mal, malleolus; max, maximum; med, medial; METh, metabolic equivalent hours; min, minutes; ml, millimetres; NA, not applicable; no, number; NR, not reported; OM, outcome measure; pt, participant; R, right; reps, repetitions; SCT, stair-climb test; SOB, shortness of breath; SpO 2 , oxygen saturation; UL, upper limb; VE, minute ventilation; VO 2 oxygen uptake; VO 2 max; maximal oxygen consumption; yr, year published.

Outcome measures

Measurement properties evaluated were: intra-rater reliability (studies n=1); inter-rater reliability (n=1); measurement error (n=1); criterion-concurrent validity (n=2); criterion-predictive validity (n=20); construct validity (hypothesis testing) (n=11) and responsiveness (n=0) (Table 1; Table 4; Additional file 3).
Table 4

Criterion-concurrent validity, criterion-predictive validity and construct validity of outcome measures

Author, yr

Type of validity and OM

Missing values

Comparator OM or predicted outcome

Validation results

Functional capacity

    

Jones 2012 [40]

Crit-pred 6MWT

Nil

All-cause mortality

Unadjusted HR p = 0.003; Compared to 6MWT <358.5 m adjusted HR = 0.61 (95% CI 0.34-1.07) if 6MWT 358.5-450 m; Compared to 6MWT <385.5 m adjusted HR = 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.93) if 6MWT >450 m

Pancieri 2010 [22]

Crit-pred 6MWT

NR

Predicted post-op 6MWT = pre-op 6MWT x (FS – resected FS) ÷ FS

r = 0.40, p<0.01

Kasymjanova 2009 [25]

Crit-pred 6MWT

19pts dropped out

Survival

Compared to 6MWT ≥ 400 m mortality HR = 0.44 (95% CI 0.23-0.83) if 6MWT <400 m, p = 0.001

Mao 2007* Miller 2005 [26, 27]

Crit-pred; construct 6MWT

3pts not complete Ax

1. Development of RP

1. ROC area under curve = 0.41, p = 0.4

2. FEV1

2. r = 0.53, p<0.001

3. FVC

3. r = 0.44, p = 0.001

4. DLCO

4. r = 0.48, p<0.001

Saad 2007 [24]

Crit-pred 6MWT

9pts died; 30pts not complete Ax (rural)

Predictors of improvement in pre-op to 180 days-post-op:

1. GEE = 0.001, SE = 0.000, p = 0.003

1. SF-36 PF

2. GEE = 0.001, SE = 0.000, p = 0.000

2. SF-36 PR

3. GEE = 0.001, SE = 0.000, p = 0.031

3. SF-36 GH

 

Parsons 2003 [39]

Crit-pred 6MWT

29pts

LOS out of hospital < 30 days post-op

Not significant

Pierce 1994 [23]

Crit-pred 6MWT

NR

Post-op:

1. p<0.05

1. respiratory failure

2. p>0.05

2. surgical POC

3. p>0.05

3. respiratory POC

4. p>0.05

4. cardiac POC

5. p>0.05

5. all POC

Holden 1992 [41]

Crit-pred 6MWT

3pts not complete Ax

Survival > 90 days post-op

6MWT diff b/t groups with/without survival p<0.05;

6MWT > 1000feet (305 m) pre-op sensitivity 100%, positive predictive value 85%, negative predictive value 100% for survival

England 2012 [44]

Construct ISWT

Nil

1. P max monitor (insp mm strength)

1. r = 0.42, p = 0.01

2. dynamometry (peripheral mm power)

2. r = 0.39, p = 0.01

3. spirometry (% predicted FEV1)

3. r = 0.22, p = 0.17

4. spirometry (% predicted FVC)

4. r = 0.21, p = 0.2

5. CRDQ (mastery)

5. r = 0.21, p = 0.18

Win 2006 [30]

Crit-pred; crit-concurrent; construct ISWT

Nil

1. CPET (VO2peak)

1. r = 0.67, p<0.001

2. CPET (VO2peak% predicted)

2. r = 0.30

3. spirometry (FEV1)

3. r = 0.5

4. 12 month survival

4. ROC area = 0.7, p = 0.003

Win 2004 [64]

Crit-pred, construct ISWT

8pts

1. poor surgical outcome (post-op death, MI, heart failure, resp failure, septicaemia, pneumonia, cardiac arrthymia)

1. p = 0.6 between poor and sufficient outcome groups

2. FEV1

2. r = 0.46, not significant

Brunelli 2012 [43]

Crit-pred SCT

14

Median survival and 5-year survival

Altitude >18 m independent predictor: HR = 0.5, p = 0.003

Brunelli 2010 [31]

Construct SCT

Nil

SCT (VO2max)

Altitude: correlation coefficient = 0.7, p<0.0001

Speed of ascent: correlation coefficient = 0.47, p = 0.005

Pancieri 2010 [22]

Crit-pred SCT

NR

Predicted post-op SCT = pre-op SCT x (FS – resected FS) ÷ FS

r = 0.66, p<0.001

Brunelli 2008a [34]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

POC < 30 days post-op

Pre-op altitude: coefficient = −0.05, OR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.99), SE = 0.02, p = 0.045

O2desat >4%: coefficient = 0.56, OR = 1.8 (95% CI 1–3), SE = 0.3, p = 0.05

Brunelli 2008b [33]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

1. POC < 30 days post-op

1. altitude: coefficient = 0.34, SE = 0.2, OR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.02-1.95), p = 0.04

2. Death < 30 days post-op

2. altitude: coefficient = 0.91, SE = 0.4, OR = 2.5 (95% CI 1.1-5.5), p = 0.02

3. Post-op hospital costs

3. altitude: coefficient = 2160.2, SE = 573, p<0.001

Koegelenberg 2008 [29]

Crit-concurrent SCT

Nil

CPET (VO2max)

Altitude r2 = 0.06, Speed of ascent r2 = 0.77 (lung cancer only)

Nikolic 2008 [36]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

POC < 30 days post-op

Best independent predictor = SpO2 after 40 steps and SCT duration for lobectomy group (60% sensitivity, 75% specificity cut off value 1.09) positive LR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.71-3.38), negative LR = 0.53 (95% CI 0.38-0.76)

Brunelli 2007 [20]

Constuct SCT

53pts at 3 months

Post-op SCT (VO2peak)

Pre-op SCT VO2peak directly associated with post-op SCT: regression analysis lobectomy F = 3.58, p<0.01; pneumonectomy F = 3.53, p<0.01

Toker 2007 [37]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

POC (cardiac or pulmonary)

SpO2 pre-SCT: OR = 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), p = 0.001

Change SpO2 pre to post-SCT: OR = 1.59 (95% CI 1.21-2.10), p = 0.018

Brunelli 2005 [42]

Crit-pred SCT

13pts

1. POC < 30 days post-op

Inability to perform pre-op SCT:

1. p = 0.7

2. Death < 30 days post-op

2. OR = 0.20 (95% CI 0.06-0.62), p = 0.005

Brunelli 2004 [35]

Crit-pred SCT

18pts

POC < 30 days post-op

Lower altitude pre-op independent predictor: coefficient = −0.18, p = 0.0015

Brunelli 2003 [21]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

O2 desat during post-op SCT

O2 desat during pre-op SCT independent variable: regression coefficient = 0.22, p = 0.0004

Parsons 2003 [39]

Crit-pred SCT

29pts

LOS out of hospital < 30 days post-op

1. longer LOS correlated with speed of ascent r = 0.34, p≤0.02

2. workload achieved predicted LOS out of hospital r2 = 0.130

Brunelli 2002 [32]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

POC < 30 days post-op

Altitude independent variable: p = 0.003

Pate 1996 [38]

Crit-pred SCT

Nil

POC < 30 days post-op

Significant difference in pre-op SCT between pt who did and did not develop POC

Holden 1982 [41]

Crit-pred SCT

3pts

Survival > 90 days post-op

SCT diff b/t groups with/without survival p<0.05

SCT > 44steps pre-op positive predictive value 91%, negative predictive value 80% for survival

Physical activity

    

Maddocks 2012 [47]

Construct Acc

Nil

ECOG PS

Statistically significant difference in mean daily step count, time spent sitting/lying, upright, standing or stepping between PS 0, 1 and 2 p<0.05 but not mean daily sit-to-stand transitions

Grutsch 2011a, 2011b; Du-Quiton 2010 [4850]

Construct Acc

16pts Acc, 16pts questionnaires

1. HADS

1. Outpt: depression and activity r = −0.41, p = 0.04

2. Ferrans and Power QLI Cancer Version III

2. Daytime activity and QLI domains of health/functioning r = 0.51, p<0.01; social/economic r = 0.38, p = 0.048; psychological/spiritual r = 0.45, p = 0.02; family r = 0.45, p = 0.02; overall QLI r = 0.57, p<0.01

3. EORTC

3. Inpt: daytime activity and loss of appetite r = −0.41, p = 0.005

4. PSQI

4. Outpt: lower sleep medication use and activity r = −0.58, p<0.01

Novoa 2011 [51]

Construct Pedom

13 pts – unable to perform exercise test

CPET (VO2max)

Mean daily total steps r = 0.4

Mean daily aerobic steps r = 0.16

Mean daily time of aerobic capacity r = 0.11

Mean daily distance walked r = 0.44

Maddocks 2010 [46]

Construct Acc

2 pts withdrawn

Estimated EE (stepping and non-stepping) measured from acc

Non-stepping EE and daily step count r = −0.91, p<0.01

Muscle strength

    

Brown 2005 [53]

Construct CST

Nil

1. KPS

1. r2 = 0.565, p < 0.001 (ca group)

   

2. FACIT-fatigue

2. with incr fatigue, lower CST p<0.01 (ca group)

Abbreviations: 6MWT, six minute walk test; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals; acc, accelerometery; Ax, assessment; b/t, between; ca, cancer; CPET, cardio-pulmonary exercise testing; CRDQ, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire; crit, criterion; CST, chair-stand test; desat, desaturation; diff, difference; DLCO, diffused capacity for carbon monoxide; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; EE, energy expenditure; EORTC, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire; FACIT-fatigue, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy- Fatigue scale; FEV 1 , force expired volume in one second; FS, lung functioning segments; FVC, forced vital capacity; GEE, generalized estimation equations; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HR, hazard ratio; insp, inspiratory; inpt, inpatient; ISWT, incremental-shuttle walk test; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; LOS, length of stay; LR, likelihood ratio; m, meters; max, maximum; MI, myocardial infarction; mm, muscle; NR, not reported; OM, outcome measure; OR, odds ratio; outpt, outpatient; P, pressure; pedom, pedometer; POC, post-operative complication; post-op, post-operative; pre-op, pre-operative; pred, predictive; PS, performance status; pt, participant; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; QLI, Quality of Life Index; r, correlation coefficient; ROC, received operating characteristic curve; SCT, stair-climb test; SE, standard error; SF-36, Short Form 36 physical functioning/physical role/general health domain; resp, respiratory; RP, radiation pneumonitis; Rx, treatment; SpO 2 , oxygen saturation; VO 2max , maximum oxygen consumption; VO 2peak , peak oxygen consumption; yr, year published.

* results presented from most recent publication.

Risk of bias of studies

Risk of bias was assessed by independent reviews (CG, CO) achieving a percentage agreement of 87%, Kappa=0.80 [16]. Consensus was achieved on 100% of occasions that reviewers disagreed. Overall studies evaluating validity scored ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ on 12/29 occasions. No studies evaluating reliability scored ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ (Table 5). The worst performing area for validity studies was design requirements (lack of a priori hypotheses formed) and for reliability studies was design requirements (small sample size).
Table 5

Methodological quality of included studies - part two

Author, yr

Reliability

Measurement error

Hypothesis testing

Criterion validity

Responsiveness

Functional capacity

     

Brunelli 2012 [43]

x

x

x

Fair

x

England 2012 [44]

x

x

Fair

x

x

Jones 2012 [40]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Brunelli 2010 [31]

x

x

Excellent

x

x

Pancieri 2010 [22]

x

x

x

Fair

x

Kasymjanova 2009 [25]

x

x

x

Fair

x

Brunelli 2008a [34]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Brunelli 2008b [33]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Koegelenberg 2008 [29]

x

x

x

Fair

x

Nikolic 2008 [36]

x

x

x

Poor

x

Brunelli 2007 [20]

x

x

Fair

x

x

Mao 2007 [26]

x

x

Fair

Good

x

Saad 2007 [24]

x

x

x

Poor

x

Toker 2007 [37]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Win 2006 [30]

x

x

Fair

Good

x

Brunelli 2005 [42]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Brunelli 2004 [35]

x

x

x

Good

x

Win 2004 [64]

x

x

Poor

Poor

x

Brunelli 2003 [21]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Parsons 2003 [39]

x

x

x

Good

x

Brunelli 2002 [32]

x

x

x

Excellent

x

Pate 1996 [38]

x

x

x

Poor

x

Pierce 1994 [23]

x

x

x

Poor

x

Holden 1992 [41]

x

x

x

Poor

x

Physical activity

     

Maddocks 2012 [47]

x

x

Poor

x

x

Novoa 2011 [51]

x

x

Poor

x

x

Grutsch 2011a, 2011b; Du-Quiton 2010 [4850]

x

x

Fair

x

x

Maddocks 2010 [46]

x

x

Fair

x

x

Muscle strength

   

x

x

Trutschnigg 2008 [28]

Poor (intra-r)

x

x

x

x

Brown 2005 [53]

x

x

Fair

x

x

Knols 2002 [52]

Fair (inter-r)

Fair

x

x

x

Abbreviations: inter-r, inter-rater reliability; intra-r, intra-rater reliability; yr, year published.

x = not assessed.

Study results

Study results are summarised in Table 1 and the sections below. The stair-climbing test, six-minute walking test (6MWT) and incremental-shuttle walk test (ISWT) performed the best out of the 13 tests reviewed, primarily due to lack of studies investigating measurement properties of the other 10 tests (Table 1).

Functional capacity

The 6MWT, twelve-minute walking test (12MWT), ISWT, endurance-shuttle walking test (ESWT) and stair-climbing test are field tests reflecting functional capacity. No studies investigated inter or intra-rater reliability, measurement error or responsiveness of these tests in participants with NSCLC.

The criterion-concurrent validity of the ISWT and stair-climbing test against the gold standard cardio-pulmonary exercise test (CPET) was reported by three studies (Table 4) [2931]. The ISWT was validated against CPET (VO2peak) with strong correlation (r=0.67) [30]. The stair-climbing test (ascent speed) was validated against CPET (maximum oxygen consumption VO2max) with strong correlation (r2=0.77) [29].

The criterion-predictive validity of the 6MWT, ISWT and stair-climbing test were reported and these instruments were shown to predict post-operative outcomes (studies n=12) [2024, 3238], post-operative length of hospital stay (n=1) [39] and survival (n=8) (Table 4) [23, 25, 30, 33, 4043]: Pre-operative stair-climbing test was a predictor for post-operative complications when using variables: test duration [36], oxygen saturation [34, 36, 37] or altitude [3235, 38]. Pre-operative 6MWT was a predictor for post-operative respiratory failure (p<0.05) [23]. Pre-operative stair-climbing test was a predictor for post-operative length of stay (r=0.34) [39] and hospital cost (coefficient=2160.2) [33]; and 6MWT was a predictor for post-operative health related quality of life (HRQoL) physical domains (GEE=0.001) [24]. The 6MWT was shown in two papers to predict survival in advanced NSCLC (hazard ratios=0.44 [25] and 0.48 [40]). With every 50 m improvement in 6MWT, survival improved by 13% [40] and patients walking ≥ 400 m pre-chemotherapy had greater survival time [25]. In the post-operative population survival was predicted by pre-operative ISWT (area under the ROC curve=0.7) [30]; stair-climbing test (steps climbed) (p<0.05) [41]; stair-climbing test (altitude) (coefficient=0.91 [33]; hazard ratio=0.5 [43]) and inability to perform stair-climbing test (odds ratio=0.2) [42]. A pre-operative stair-climbing test result of >44steps predicted post-operative survival at 30 days (positive predictive value=91%, negative predictive value=80%) [41].

Three studies reported on the construct validity of the 6MWT and ISWT: The 6MWT was validated against respiratory function tests (forced expired volume in one-second) with strong correlation (r=0.53) [26]. The ISWT was validated with moderate correlation against inspiratory muscle strength (r=0.42) [44] and isokinetic muscle dynamometry (r=0.39) (Table 4) [44].

Physical activity

No studies validated accelerometers or pedometers against the gold standard measure of physical activity (direct calorimetry) [45] or investigated reliability, measurement error or responsiveness. Four studies investigated construct validity (Table 4): The ActivPAL™ accelerometer (step count) was validated against ActivPAL™ (estimated energy expenditure) with strong correlation (r=−0.91) [46] and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance-Scale (p<0.05) [47]. The Actigraph (accelerations/minute) was validated with medium correlation against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (depression) (r=−0.41) [48], the Ferrans and Power Quality of Life Index Cancer-Version III (HRQoL) (r=0.38-0.57) [49], the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (loss of appetite) (r=−0.41) [49]; and with strong correlation against the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (sleep medication use) (r=−0.58) [50]. The OMROM Walking Style Pro® pedometer (distance walked) was validated against CPET (VO2max) with moderate correlation (r=0.4) [51].

Muscle strength

Only two studies investigated muscle strength test reliability (Table 1; Additional file 3): The inter-rater reliability of the MFB50K pulley-gauge hand-held dynamometer (HHD) (elbow/knee extension) was very good (ICC=0.90, 0.96 respectively), however measurement error between examiners was large (SEM=10.6, 19.8 respectively), as was the smallest detectable difference (SDD=29.4, 54.8 respectively) (Additional file 4) [52]. The Jamar hand-grip dynamometer (HGD) (grip-strength) intra-rater reliability percent coefficient of variation was 6.3, which was better than that demonstrated for HGD with Biodex attachment (%CV16.7) (Table 1; Additional file 3) [28].

No tests measuring muscle strength were validated against the gold standard measure (isokinetic dynamometry). Construct validity was reported for the chair-stand test with a moderate correlation against Karnofsky Performance Status (r2=0.56) (Table 4) [53].

Discussion

This review focused on three commonly assessed outcomes (functional capacity, physical activity and muscle strength) used in the NSCLC literature [3]. Tests used to evaluate the effectiveness of exercise in patients with NSCLC must be reliable and responsive to change in the outcome of interest, regardless of the cancer stage of participants and therefore understanding how different NSCLC stages respond to the outcome measures is vital. Standardised measures allow generalizability of study results across trials, which is important in NSCLC, given the poor participant consent/retention rate [54] and mortality rate. The gold standard measurement of functional capacity, physical activity and muscle strength require laboratory tests which have significant limitations for use in exercise-based NSCLC research trials. CPET (functional capacity) [7], direct calorimetry (physical activity) and isokinetic dynamometry (muscle strength) require expensive equipment, advanced monitoring and experienced technicians. Whilst limited studies have reported CPET to be safe and feasible in NSCLC [55], field tests which be performed reliably in clinical settings may reduce research costs, participant burden and drop-out rates. This review demonstrated the use of 13 different field tests and, although a number of studies investigated the validity of outcome measures in NSCLC, only two studies investigated reliability, with no study investigating test responsiveness. Further studies are needed to establish measurement properties of standardised field tests for individuals with NSCLC to allow the most appropriate choice of test when designing research trials.

Functional capacity was the most common outcome of interest in this review, with the 6MWT most commonly used. Search 1 retrieved 38 studies utilising the 6MWT in NSCLC and Search 2 retrieved seven studies investigating 6MWT measurement properties. Only 51% (n=17/33) of studies published after 2002, using the 6MWT in Search 1, referenced the American Thoracic Society guidelines in their methodology [56]. Three studies referenced the guidelines but stated they performed only one 6MWT during a testing session. Two tests have been shown to enhance reliability in other populations, with reports demonstrating the second 6MWT increases by 9-15 m [56, 57]. The encouragement used in the 6MWT in part one studies was variable. No studies identified in part two of this review analysed the reliability of the 6MWT. Similarly, in Search 1, 14 studies used the 6MWT to evaluate the benefit of exercise intervention over time, however no studies in Search 2 investigated the responsiveness of the 6MWT in any stage of NSCLC. In comparison, there has been a substantial amount of work regarding the criterion-predictive validity of the 6MWT in patients with NSCLC. Results demonstrated the 6MWT was predictive for post-operative complications, HRQoL and survival. The 6MWT has not been validated against CPET in NSCLC, however it has been validated against CPET in populations with cardiorespiratory disease with moderate correlations (r=0.51–0.93) [5861]. Given the frequent use of the 6MWT, establishing reliability, measurement error, minimal clinically important difference, responsiveness and validating the 6MWT against CPET in NSCLC should be a priority.

In Search 1 the ISWT was used in six studies involving participants with NSCLC and twice this was to evaluate the benefit of exercise [62, 63]. Only fifty percent of the studies described how the participant was monitored during the test [30, 44, 64], however all studies referenced their procedure, most (n=5/6, 83%) referencing the original protocol when the test was created [65]. The ISWT was only performed once during the testing session across all studies excluding one. Given no studies in Search 2 investigated the reliability of this test, similar to the case with the 6MWT, further research needs to investigate the best method for completing it in NSCLC to determine if a familiarisation effect is present.

The 12MWT and the ESWT have been infrequently used in studies of NSCLC and neither test was investigated regarding its measurement properties in NSCLC. Currently the alternative 6MWT and ISWT appear to be better choices of tests until further research is completed.

Search 1 identified 21 studies utilising the stair-climbing test in NSCLC, all in pre-lung resection candidates. No studies have used the stair-climbing test to evaluate exercise intervention. Currently there is no gold standard method to perform the stair-climbing test. Published studies used variable instructions, encouragement, monitoring and experience of assessors. Some authors reported the number of steps/altitude whilst others reported test duration. Results of Search 2 consistently demonstrated the stair-climbing test to be valuable in the pre-operative evaluation of lung resection candidates, with the stair-climbing test providing prediction validity with regard to post-operative complications, length of stay, mortality and hospital cost. The stair-climbing test has also been validated against the gold standard (CPET). No studies evaluated reliability; measurement error or responsiveness in NSCLC and therefore it is currently not known if this is a suitable test to evaluate exercise interventions, especially in post-operative and chemo-radiation cohorts.

Search 1 demonstrated that physical activity has been measured in participants with NSCLC using accelerometers and pedometers. Search 2 showed that accelerometers and pedometers have not been validated against the gold standard measure (direct calorimetry) in NSCLC. Direct calorimetry has limitations and accelerometers are commonly the preferred method to measure physical activity [66, 67]. However, accelerometers and pedometers are limited in that they rely on participant compliance. In the NSCLC literature, few studies are conducted measuring physical activity levels and even fewer studies have investigated the measurement properties associated with tests.

Muscle strength was measured using five different tests by 17 studies in sSarch 1. Search 2 retrieved three studies evaluating measurement properties of only three of the five instruments. All three studies were conducted with mixed cancer cohorts and the methodological quality of each study was ‘poor’ or ‘fair’: therefore results need to be interpreted with caution. Hand dynamometry was the most commonly used instrument to assess muscle strength in part one studies. Two hand-dynamometry devices were tested for reliability however results were not strong enough to recommend use of a particular device. Whilst both HHD and HGD have been shown to be reliable and valid in many patient populations, further research needs to be performed in NSCLC [6870]. Manual muscle testing is often considered to be qualitative and frequently performed in profoundly weak populations such as those with critical illness [71, 72]. Four studies in Search 1 used MMT to measure upper-body strength on repeated occasions however the measurement properties have not been established. This review demonstrated that HHD, HGD, MMT, one-repetition maximum and the chair-stand test have been used in NSCLC, however there is currently insufficient research to support the use of one measure over another.

Limitations

To minimise risk of selection bias two independent reviewers were utilised. In Search 2 articles were excluded if cancer type was unconfirmed. There is a risk of publication bias, where studies which have found poor measurement properties have not been published. Given that registration of studies evaluating measurement properties is not standard practice, the extent of this is unknown [8].

The COSMIN checklist was not completed in its entirety and may have also under-estimated methodological quality because the rating of each item was determined using the lowest score rather than the average or highest score.

Due to the small number of studies evaluating measurement properties of the included outcome measures in cohorts with only NSCLC participants, this review included studies with mixed cancer types (providing at least five participants had NSCLC). Different cancer types are associated with heterogeneous symptom profiles (for example dyspnoea and pain), gas exchange and exercise capacity. Therefore findings from the studies with mixed cancer types must be interpreted with caution when extrapolated for use in NSCLC. Additionally there was heterogeneity with regards to the participants in the included studies (particularly age and treatment exposure) (Table 2). This may explain, in part, the variance in data obtained and large standard deviations reported by individuals studies (Additional file 4) because age, comorbidities (such as COPD) and treatment (such as chemotherapy) directly impact exercise capacity and performance as well as the disease of NSCLC.

Conclusion

Measurements of functional capacity, physical activity and muscle strength are commonly used as outcomes for individuals with NSCLC participating in exercise trials. The 6MWT, 12MWT, ISWT, ESWT and stair-climbing test have been used to assess functional capacity in NSCLC. Only two tests (ISWT and stair-climb test) were validated against CPET, the gold standard measure of functional capacity. Physical activity has been measured using accelerometers and pedometers: there was some evidence for construct validity but neither had been validated against the gold standard or tested for reliability. Muscle strength has been measured using HHD, HGD, manual muscle test, 1RM and the chair-stand test. Only two strength measures were tested for their reliability in NSCLC, and there was insufficient evidence to support the use of one strength measure over another. Responsiveness and minimal important clinical difference was not established for any of the 13 tests. Currently there is an important gap in the literature regarding the measurement properties of commonly used tests in NSCLC and further research needs to be conducted in this area to improve the clinical use and applicability of these tests in patients with NSCLC.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the authors/investigators from the included studies in this systematic review who willingly provided additional clarification information regarding their studies. The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr CB Terwee for her advice regarding the COSMIN4-point checklist.

CG was supported by an Australian Post-graduate Award Ph.D. student scholarship. There was no further source of funding or sponsorship for this systematic review.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne
(2)
Institute for Breathing and Sleep
(3)
Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health
(4)
Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Health

References

  1. Jones L, Eves N, Haykowsky M: Exercise intolerance in cancer and the role of exercise therapy to reverse dysfunction. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10: 598-605. 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70031-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Tanaka K, Akechi T, Okuyama T: Impact of dyspnea, pain, and fatigue on daily life activities in ambulatory patients with advanced lung cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002, 23: 417-23. 10.1016/S0885-3924(02)00376-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Granger C, McDonald C, Berney S: Exercise intervention to improve exercise capacity and health related quality of life for patients with Non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Lung Cancer. 2011, 72: 139-53. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.01.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fleg J, Pina I, Balady G: Assessment of functional capacity in clinical and research applications - an advisory from the committee on exercise, rehabilitation, and prevention, council on clinical cardiology, American heart association. Circulation. 2000, 102: 1591-1597. 10.1161/01.CIR.102.13.1591.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Caspersen C: Physical Activity, exercise and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health related research. Publ Health Rep. 1985, 100: 126-131.Google Scholar
  6. Bohannon RW: Quantitative testing of muscle strength: issues and practical options for the geriatric population. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 2002, 18: 1-17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones L, Eves N, Mackey J: Safety and feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with advanced cancer. Lung Canc. 2007, 55: 225-32. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.10.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink L: Measurement in Medicine - A Practical Guide. 2011, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Portney L: Foundations of clinical research applications to practice. Edited by: Watkins MP. 2000, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2Google Scholar
  10. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Knol D: The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10: 22-22. 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J. 2009, 339: 37-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. NHMRC. National Health Medical Research Council: NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. 2009, [cited 2012 8 July]; Available from: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/developers.htm Google Scholar
  13. National Cancer Institute: US National Institutes of Health, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment PDQ Summary. 2012, 15/10/12]; Available from: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/non-small-cell-lung/HealthProfessional/page1 Google Scholar
  14. Terwee C, COSMIN group: An overview of systematic reviews of measurement properties of measurement instruments that intend to measure (aspects of) health status or (health-related) quality of life. 2012, [cited 2012 10.05]; Available from: http://www.cosmin.nl/the-cosmin-checklist_8_5.html Google Scholar
  15. National Institute for Health Research: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). 2012, [cited 2012 10.05]; Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ Google Scholar
  16. Sim J, Wright C: The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005, 85: 257-268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Terwee C, Jansma E, Riphagen I: Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009, 18: 1115-1123. 10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D: Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012, 21: 651-10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Terwee C, Bouwmeester W, van Elsland S: Instruments to assess physical activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011, 19: 620-33. 10.1016/j.joca.2011.01.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Brunelli A, Xiume F, Refai M: Evaluation of expiratory volume, diffusion capacity, and exercise tolerance following major lung resection: a prospective follow-up analysis. Chest. 2007, 131: 141-7. 10.1378/chest.06-1345.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Brunelli A, Al Refai M, Monteverde M: Predictors of exercise oxygen desaturation following major lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003, 24: 145-8. 10.1016/S1010-7940(03)00175-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pancieri M, Cataneo D, Montovani J: Comparison between actual and predicted postoperative stair-climbing test, walk test and spirometric values in patients undergoing lung resection. Acta Cir Bras. 2010, 25: 535-540. 10.1590/S0102-86502010000600014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pierce R, Copland J, Sharpe K: Preoperative risk evaluation for lung cancer resection: predicted postoperative product as a predictor of surgical mortality. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994, 150: 947-55. 10.1164/ajrccm.150.4.7921468.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Saad I, Botega N, Toro I: Predictors of quality-of-life improvement following pulmonary resection due to lung cancer. Sao Paulo Med J. 2007, 125: 46-49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasymjanova G, Correa J, Kreisman H: Prognostic value of the six-minute walk in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009, 4: 602-7. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31819e77e8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mao J, Zhang J, Zhou S: Updated assessment of the six-minute walk test as predictor of acute radiation-induced pneumonitis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007, 67: 759-67. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller K, Kocak Z, Kahn D: Preliminary report of the 6-minute walk test as a predictor of radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity. IJROBP. 2005, 62: 1009-1013.Google Scholar
  28. Trutschnigg B: Precision and reliability of strength (Jamar vs. Biodex handgrip) and body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry vs. bioimpedance analysis) measurements in advanced cancer patients. Appl Physiol Nutr Met. 2008, 33: 1232-1239. 10.1139/H08-122.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Koegelenberg C, Diacon A, Irani S: Stair climbing in the functional assessment of lung resection candidates. Respiration. 2008, 75: 374-379. 10.1159/000116873.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Win T, Jackson A, Groves A: Comparison of shuttle walk with measured peak oxygen consumption in patients with operable lung cancer. Thorax. 2006, 61: 57-60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Brunelli A, Xiumé F, Refai M: Peak oxygen consumption measured during the stair-climbing test in lung resection candidates. Respiration. 2010, 80: 207-211. 10.1159/000279331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Brunelli A, Al Refai M, Monteverde M: Stair climbing test predicts cardiopulmonary complications after lung resection. Chest. 2002, 121: 1106-1109. 10.1378/chest.121.4.1106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Brunelli A, Refai M, Xiume F: Performance at symptom-limited stair-climbing test is associated with increased cardiopulmonary complications, mortality, and costs after major lung resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008, 86: 240-247. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.03.025. discussion 247–248View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Brunelli A, Refai M, Xiume F: Oxygen desaturation during maximal stair-climbing test and postoperative complications after major lung resections. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008, 33: 77-81. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.09.028.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Brunelli A, Monteverde M, Al Refai M: Stair climbing test as a predictor of cardiopulmonary complications after pulmonary lobectomy in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004, 77: 266-270. 10.1016/S0003-4975(03)01327-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nikolic I, Majeric-Kogler V, Plavec D: Stairs climbing test with pulse oximetry as predictor of early postoperative complications in functionally impaired patients with lung cancer and elective lung surgery: prospective trial of consecutive series of patients. Croat Med J. 2008, 49: 50-7. 10.3325/cmj.2008.1.50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Toker A, Ziyade S, Bayrak Y: Prediction of cardiopulmonary morbidity after resection for lung cancer: Stair climbing test complications after lung cancer surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007, 55: 253-256. 10.1055/s-2006-955941.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pate P, Tenholder M, Griffin J: Preoperative assessment of the high-risk patient for lung resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996, 61: 1494-500. 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00087-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Parsons J, Johnston M, Slutsky A: Predicting length of stay out of hospital following lung resection using preoperative health status measures. Qual Life Res. 2003, 12: 645-54. 10.1023/A:1025147906867.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones L, Hornsby W, Goetzinger A: Prognostic significance of functional capacity and exercise behavior in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2012, 76: 248-252. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.10.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Holden D, Rice T, Stelmach K: Exercise testing, 6-min walk and stair climb in the evaluation of patients at high-risk for pulmonary resection. Chest. 1992, 102: 1774-1779. 10.1378/chest.102.6.1774.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Brunelli A, Sabbatini A, Xiume F: Inability to perform maximal stair climbing test before lung resection: a propensity score analysis on early outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005, 27: 367-72. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Brunelli A, Pompili C, Berardi R: Performance at Preoperative Stair-Climbing Test Is Associated With Prognosis After Pulmonary Resection in Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012, 93 (6): 1796-1801. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.02.068.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. England R, Maddocks M, Manderson C: Factors influencing exercise performance in thoracic cancer. Respir Med. 2012, 106 (2): 294-299. 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.11.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vanhees L, Lefevre J, Philippaerts R: How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness?. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2005, 12: 102-114.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Maddocks M: Physical activity level as an outcome measure for use in cancer cachexia trials: a feasibility study. Support Care Canc. 2010, 18: 1539-1544. 10.1007/s00520-009-0776-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Maddocks M, Wilcock A: Exploring physical activity level in patients with thoracic cancer: implications for use as an outcome measure. Support Care Canc. 2012, 20: 1113-6. 10.1007/s00520-012-1393-z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Du-Quiton J, Wood P, Burch J: Actigraphic assessment of daily sleep-activity pattern abnormalities reflects self-assessed depression and anxiety in outpatients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Psychooncology. 2010, 19: 180-189. 10.1002/pon.1539.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Grutsch J, Ferrans C, Wood P: The association of quality of life with potentially remediable disruptions of circadian sleep/activity rhythms in patients with advanced lung cancer. BMC Canc. 2011, 11: 193-10.1186/1471-2407-11-193.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Grutsch J, Wood P, Du-Quiton J: Validation of actigraphy to assess circadian organization and sleep quality in patients with advanced lung cancer. J Circadian Rhy. 2011, 9: 4-4. 10.1186/1740-3391-9-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Novoa N, Varela G, Jimenez M: Value of the average basal daily walked distance measured using a pedometer to predict maximum oxygen consumption per minute in patients undergoing lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011, 39: 756-62. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.08.025.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Knols R, Stappaerts K, Fransen J: Isometric strength measurement for muscle weakness in cancer patients: reproducibility of isometric muscle strength measurements with a hand-held pull-gauge dynamometer in cancer patients. Support Care Canc. 2002, 10: 430-8. 10.1007/s00520-002-0343-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Brown D, McMillan D, Milroy R: The correlation between fatigue, physical function, the systemic inflammatory response, and psychological distress in patients with advanced lung cancer. Cancer. 2005, 103: 377-82. 10.1002/cncr.20777.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Maddocks M, Mockett S, Wilcock A: Is exercise an acceptable and practical therapy for people with or cured of cancer? A systematic review. Canc Treat Rev. 2009, 35: 383-390. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.11.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Jones L, Eves N, Haykowsky M: Cardiorespiratory exercise testing in clinical oncology research: systematic review and practice recommendations. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9: 757-765. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70195-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. American Thoracic Society: ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002, 166: 111-117.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Alison JA, Kenny P, King MT: Repeatability of the Six-Minute Walk Test and Relation to Physical Function in Survivors of a Critical Illness. Phys Ther. 2012, 91 (12): 1556-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Solway S, Brooks D, Lacasse Y: A qualitative systematic overview of the measurement properties of functional walk tests used in the cardiorespiratory domain. Chest. 2001, 119: 256-270. 10.1378/chest.119.1.256.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Jenkins SC: 6-Minute walk test in patients with COPD: clinical applications in pulmonary rehabilitation. Physiotherapy. 2007, 93: 175-182. 10.1016/j.physio.2007.02.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Bellet N, Adams L, Morris N: Systematic review: The 6-minute walk test in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: validity, reliability and responsiveness—a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2012, 98 (4): 277-287. 10.1016/j.physio.2011.11.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Sadaria K, Bahannon R: The 6-minute walk test: a brief review of literature. Clin Exerc Physiol. 2001, 3: 127-Google Scholar
  62. Andersen A, Vinther A, Poulsen L: Do patients with lung cancer benefit from physical exercise?. Acta Oncol. 2011, 50: 307-13. 10.3109/0284186X.2010.529461.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Maddocks M, Lewis M, Chauhan A: Randomized controlled pilot study of neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the quadriceps in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009, 38: 950-6. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.05.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Win T, Jackson A, Groves A: Relationship of shuttle walk test and lung cancer surgical outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004, 26: 1216-9. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.07.036.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Singh S, Morgan M, Scott S: Development of a shuttle walking test of disability in patients with chronic airways obstruction. Thorax. 1992, 47: 1019-24. 10.1136/thx.47.12.1019.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Leenders N, Sherman W, Nagaraja H: Energy expenditure estimated by accelerometry and doubly labeled water: do they agree?. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006, 38: 2165-2172. 10.1249/01.mss.0000235883.94357.95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Bluck L: Doubly labelled water for the measurement of total energy expenditure in man - progress and applications in the last decade. Br Nutr Foundation Nutr Bull. 2008, 33: 80-90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Innes E: Handgrip strength testing: a review of the literature. Aust Occup Ther J. 1999, 46: 120-140. 10.1046/j.1440-1630.1999.00182.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Bohannon RW: Responsiveness of hand-held dynamometry to changes in limb muscle strength: a retrospective investigation of published research. Isokinet Exer Sci. 2009, 17: 221-5.Google Scholar
  70. Martin H: Is hand-held dynamometry useful for the measurement of quadriceps strength in older people? A comparison with the gold standard biodex dynamometry. Gerontology. 2006, 52: 154-159. 10.1159/000091824.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Ciesla N, Dinglas V, Fan E: Manual muscle testing: a method of measuring extremity muscle strength applied to critically ill patients. J Vis Exp. 2011, 12 (50): e2632-Google Scholar
  72. Hough C, Lieu B, Caldwell E: Manual muscle strength testing of critically ill patients: feasibility and interobserver agreement. Crit Care. 2011, 15: R43-10.1186/cc10005.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/13/135/prepub

Copyright

© Granger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.