RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Endurance time is the most responsive exercise measurement in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis JF Respiratory Care FD American Association for Respiratory Care SP respcare.02674 DO 10.4187/respcare.02674 A1 Shinichi Arizono A1 Hiroyuki Taniguchi A1 Koji Sakamoto A1 Yasuhiro Kondoh A1 Tomoki Kimura A1 Kensuke Kataoka A1 Tomoya Ogawa A1 Fumiko Watanabe A1 Osamu Nishiyama A1 Koichi Nishimura A1 Ryo Kozu A1 Kazuyuki Tabira YR 2013 UL http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/early/2013/12/03/respcare.02674.abstract AB Background: Although pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been reported to improve exercise capacity in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), it is unknown which exercise measurement is the most responsive for evaluation of PR efficacy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the responsiveness of five exercise measurements by evaluating the efficacy of PR in IPF patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study in which 53 IPF patients were enrolled. The PR group underwent a 10-week out-patient PR program. The control (C) group was observed without any additional intervention including PR. Five exercise measurements (endurance time, peak work rate, VO2peak, six-minute walking distance (6MWD) and incremental shuttle walking distance (ISWD)) were evaluated at baseline and after 10 weeks. The effect size was used for the assessment of responsiveness. Results: In each group, 24 patients completed the five measurements at baseline and after 10 weeks. The changes in endurance time (PR: 181.6%, C: -8.2%), VO2peak (PR: 7.6%, C: -5.4%), peak work rate (PR: 15.1%, C: -5.1%), 6MWD (PR: 6.0%, C: -3.8%) and ISWD (PR: 9.1%, C: -5.1%) were significantly different between the groups after 10 weeks (p<0.05). In the PR group, endurance time showed the most striking improvement among the five measurements (p<0.05), and its effect size was as large as 2.96, while the others were all less than 0.5. Conclusions: Endurance time is the most responsive exercise measurement for evaluating PR efficacy in IPF patients.