Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Minimal clinically important difference for daily pedometer step count in COPD

Oliver Polgar, Suhani Patel, Jessica A. Walsh, Ruth E. Barker, Stuart F. Clarke, William D-C. Man, Claire M. Nolan
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00823-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00823-2020
Oliver Polgar
1Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Oliver Polgar
Suhani Patel
1Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Suhani Patel
Jessica A. Walsh
1Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jessica A. Walsh
Ruth E. Barker
1Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ruth E. Barker
Stuart F. Clarke
3Hillingdon Integrated Respiratory Service, Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stuart F. Clarke
William D-C. Man
1Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
3Hillingdon Integrated Respiratory Service, Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
4Harefield Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for William D-C. Man
Claire M. Nolan
1Harefield Respiratory Research Group, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claire M. Nolan
  • For correspondence: c.nolan@rbht.nhs.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Pedometer step count improves with pulmonary rehabilitation and deteriorates with time. The MCID for improvement and deterioration is 427 and −456 steps, respectively, but there is uncertainty about the reliability of these estimates. https://bit.ly/3ci97Jh

To the Editor:

Assessment of physical activity is an important part of COPD management, because physical inactivity is associated with mortality and morbidity in this disease group [1]. The most commonly used physical activity outcome is daily step count, typically measured using an accelerometer or pedometer [2]. Outside the research arena, pedometers are used more commonly than accelerometers due to lower cost, simplicity and acceptability to patients. Although previous studies have described the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in accelerometer daily step count, these estimates are not appropriate for the interpretation of meaningful changes in pedometer step count, as pedometers are less reliable in capturing daily step count [3]. The MCID for improvement in daily pedometer step count in patients with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation is not known, and there are limited data on MCID for deterioration in pedometer step count. The aim of our study was to provide an estimate of the MCID for daily pedometer step count in patients with COPD, using response to pulmonary rehabilitation as a model of improvement and longitudinal decline following pulmonary rehabilitation as a model of deterioration.

This was a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of pedometer-directed step count targets as an adjunct to pulmonary rehabilitation in improving physical activity in COPD [4]. The original trial protocol was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01719822) and granted ethical approval by the West London Research Ethics Committee (11/LO/1021). For this data analysis we combined the two study arms, as the intervention of the primary study did not result in any significant between-group differences [5].

We included people with COPD referred to an 8-week outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme at Harefield Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit. The programme adhered to British Thoracic Society quality standards for pulmonary rehabilitation [6] and has been described elsewhere [4, 7]. We measured spirometry, Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score, incremental shuttle walk (ISW) test, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and pedometer step count (Yamax Digiwalker CW700; Yamax, Bridgnorth, UK) pre-, post- and 6 months following pulmonary rehabilitation. Patients wore the pedometer during waking hours for seven consecutive days following each assessment. At the end of the 7-day period, the step count for each day was retrieved from the device and the average was calculated. At the immediate post-pulmonary rehabilitation and 6 months post-pulmonary rehabilitation assessments, participants completed a Global Rating of Change Questionnaire (GRCQ) [8]: “How do you feel your physical activity levels have changed following rehabilitation?” and rated their response on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from “1: I feel much more active” to “5: I feel much less active”.

Baseline data were reported using descriptive statistics. We compared outcomes using paired t-test (or Wilcoxon signed rank test for nonparametric data) and Chi-squared test for trend. We calculated the median (interquartile range (IQR)) change in pedometer step count for each GRCQ response. The MCID for improvement was defined as the value for “2: I feel a little more active” at the post-pulmonary rehabilitation assessment. The MCID for deterioration was the value for “4: I feel a little less active” at the 6-month assessment (compared to post-pulmonary rehabilitation).

A total of 152 participants were enrolled in pulmonary rehabilitation, of which 113 (74%) and 98 (64%) attended the post-pulmonary rehabilitation and 6-month assessments, respectively. Baseline characteristics are as follows: male 72%; mean±sd age 68±9 years; forced expiratory volume in 1 s 50.5±21.2% predicted; MRC 3±1; ISW 259±145 m; CRQ total score 76.8±22.8; and median (IQR) daily pedometer step count 2418 (1440–4261) steps. Following pulmonary rehabilitation, there were significant improvements in mean (95% CI) change in MRC dyspnoea score (−1, −1–0), ISW (63, 51–75), CRQ total score (14.7, 11.8–17.6) and daily pedometer step count median (IQR) change (420 (−259–1582); p=0.03). 100 (88%) patients reported feeling “a little more active” or “much more active”. Compared to the post-pulmonary rehabilitation assessment, there was a significant worsening in all outcomes at the 6-month assessment: mean (95% CI) change MRC dyspnoea 0.3 (0.1–0.5), ISW −32 (−46–−19), CRQ total score −6.7 (−9.6–−3.9) and median (IQR) change daily pedometer step count −262 (−1764–511) (p=0.04). 36 (37%) patients reported feeling “a little less active” or “much less active”.

Due to the small number of participants (n=13), responses 3–5 (“I feel the same/less/much less active”) were combined for the post-pulmonary rehabilitation GRCQ. The median (IQR) MCID estimate for improvement and deterioration in daily pedometer step count was 427 (−443–1286) and −456 (−2271–650) steps, respectively (figure 1). We did not combine the GRCQ data collected at the 6-month assessment.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Median (interquartile range) change in step count according to the question: “How do you feel your physical activity levels have changed following rehabilitation?” at the a) post-pulmonary rehabilitation and b) 6-month assessments.

This study demonstrates that pedometer-measured daily step count improves with pulmonary rehabilitation and deteriorates with time following programme completion. We estimated the MCID for improvement and deterioration in daily pedometer step count to be median (IQR) 427 (−443–1286) and −456 (−2271–650) steps, respectively. However, owing to the wide interquartile range there is uncertainty about the reliability of these estimates.

Only one study has estimated the MCID of daily pedometer step count. Using anchor-based methods, Teylan et al. [9] estimated that the MCID of deterioration in daily pedometer step count (Omron HJ-720ITC; Omron Healthcare, IL, USA) ranged between −350 and −1100 steps in 93 patients with COPD. Our mean estimate lies within this range, albeit at the lower end. We speculate that the higher MCID estimate reported by Teylan et al. is related to the choice of anchor. Whereas we used patient-reported anchors (“little more active” or “little less active”), Teylan et al. used the onset of a “clinically significant medical event” including emergency room treatment or hospitalisation. Using validated accelerometers and distribution-based methods, Demeyer et al. [10] estimated the MCID of daily accelerometer step count to be 600–1000 steps. Although this is higher than our estimate, it is recognised that accelerometers are more reliable in capturing daily step count than pedometers [3].

A weakness of our study was that there was significant heterogeneity in daily pedometer step count change data, which was not normally distributed. There was a lack of correlation between the change in daily step count and change in exercise capacity (ISW), health-related quality of life (CRQ total score) and respiratory disability (MRC), limiting potential anchors. Although there is no gold standard technique or consensus on method of determining the MCID [11], our study used global rating of change responses which is a well-established anchor-based method for determining MCID [12, 13].

In summary, pedometer daily step count improves with pulmonary rehabilitation and deteriorates with time following programme completion in patients with COPD. The MCID estimates for improvement with pulmonary rehabilitation and deterioration over time after pulmonary rehabilitation are 427 and −456 steps, respectively, but there is uncertainty on the reliability of these estimates owing to the wide interquartile range. This should be evaluated in future studies.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the patients for participating in this study. We would also like to thank the staff of the Harefield Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit for their help with data collection.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: O. Polgar has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Patel has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J.A. Walsh has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: R.E. Barker has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: S.F. Clarke has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: W.D-C. Man reports personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, nonfinancial support from GSK, and grants from the National Institute for Health Research and the British Lung Foundation, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: C.M. Nolan reports personal fees for teaching on a course organised by Novartis outside the submitted work.

  • Received November 4, 2020.
  • Accepted January 21, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Gimeno-Santos E,
    2. Frei A,
    3. Steurer-Stey C, et al.
    Determinants and outcomes of physical activity in patients with COPD: a systematic review. Thorax 2014; 69: 731–739. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204763
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Boeselt T,
    2. Spielmanns M,
    3. Nell C, et al.
    Validity and usability of physical activity monitoring in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PLoS One 2016; 11: e0157229. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157229
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Pitta F,
    2. Troosters T,
    3. Probst V, et al.
    Quantifying physical activity in daily life with questionnaires and motion sensors in COPD. Eur Respir J 2006; 27: 1040–1055. doi:10.1183/09031936.06.00064105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Nolan CM,
    2. Maddocks M,
    3. Canavan JL, et al.
    Pedometer step count targets during pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1344–1352. doi:10.1164/rccm.201607-1372OC
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Furberg CD,
    2. Friedman LM
    . Approaches to data analyses of clinical trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2012; 54: 330–334. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2011.07.002
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. British Thoracic Society
    . Quality Standards for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Adults. May 2014. Available from: https://www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/quality-improvement/quality-standards/pulmonary-rehabilitation/
  7. ↵
    1. Nolan CM,
    2. Kaliaraju D,
    3. Jones SE, et al.
    Home versus outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: a propensity-matched cohort study. Thorax 2019; 74: 996–998. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212765
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Juniper EF,
    2. Guyatt GH,
    3. Willan A, et al.
    Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81–87. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Teylan M,
    2. Kantorowski A,
    3. Homsy D, et al.
    Physical activity in COPD: minimal clinically important difference for medical events. Chron Respir Dis 2019; 16: 1479973118816424. doi:10.1177/1479973118816424
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Demeyer H,
    2. Burtin C,
    3. Hornikx M, et al.
    The minimal important difference in physical activity in patients with COPD. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154587.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kon SS,
    2. Canavan JL,
    3. Jones SE, et al.
    Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 195–203. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70001-3
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Singh SJ,
    2. Jones PW,
    3. Evans R, et al.
    Minimum clinically important improvement for the incremental shuttle walking test. Thorax 2008; 63: 775–777. doi:10.1136/thx.2007.081208
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Nolan CM,
    2. Delogu V,
    3. Maddocks M, et al.
    Validity, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference of the incremental shuttle walk in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a prospective study. Thorax 2018; 73: 680–682. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210589
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 1 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Minimal clinically important difference for daily pedometer step count in COPD
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Minimal clinically important difference for daily pedometer step count in COPD
Oliver Polgar, Suhani Patel, Jessica A. Walsh, Ruth E. Barker, Stuart F. Clarke, William D-C. Man, Claire M. Nolan
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 7 (1) 00823-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00823-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Minimal clinically important difference for daily pedometer step count in COPD
Oliver Polgar, Suhani Patel, Jessica A. Walsh, Ruth E. Barker, Stuart F. Clarke, William D-C. Man, Claire M. Nolan
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 7 (1) 00823-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00823-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • rs2070600 SNP regulates AGER splicing and sputum sRAGE
  • Procoagulant microparticles and COVID-19
  • Cancer referral and interventional pulmonology during COVID-19
Show more Original research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society