Background: People with chronic stroke have significant impairments in their walking capacity. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) can be used to interpret changes in patient outcomes following interventions. There is significant variability in the response to moderate-to-high walking interventions in people with chronic stroke. One reason for this response variability could be the lack of understanding of the threshold exercise dose needed to achieve an MCID. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the threshold of exercise training speed most predictive of a small (> 20m) or moderate (> 50m) clinically important difference in 6MWT in people with chronic stroke. Materials and Methods: Participants with chronic stroke with a walking speed of 0.3-1.0m/s were randomized into a 12-week (1) fast-walking training or (2) fast-walking training and step-activity monitoring intervention. This analysis included participants (n = 129; age: 63.1 ± 12.5, 46% female) with complete pre- and post-intervention data. Exercise intensity was quantified as average training speed. Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves analyzed whether training speed is predictive of attaining a clinically important difference in the 6MWT. Training speed had poor, non-significant accuracy of predicting a small (AUC (95% CI) = 0.584 (0.475 - 0.693), p = 0.131) or moderate (AUC (95% CI) = 0.597 (0.498 - 0.696), p = 0.056) change in 6MWT. Discussion: The average walking training speed during this high-intensity walking intervention did not accurately predict which people with chronic stroke would attain a small or moderate clinically meaningful change in 6MWT distance.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

NCT02835313

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29649992/

This work was supported by the NIH/NICHD under grant 1R01HD086362; NIH/NICHD under grant T32HD007490; NIH NICHD/NCMRR under grant R25HD105583; and partially supported by the Foundation for Physical Therapy Research under a Promotion of Doctoral Studies Award.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The IRB of the University of Delaware gave ethical approval for this work (878153).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Deidentified data and relevant documents from the parent clinical trial are available via the NICHD DASH repository (https://dash.nichd.nih.gov/) upon reasonable request approved by the repository.

https://dash.nichd.nih.gov/study/425019