The greater improvement in the walk group compared to the cycle group in endurance walk time might be considered an important clinical difference since it exceeds the 105 second threshold suggested by Casaburi (2004) as the minimal important difference ERK inhibitor for endurance tests.

It also exceeds the 120 second minimal important difference we nominated a priori for the study. There have been no previous studies comparing ground walk training to stationary cycle training. Furthermore, evidence of the effectiveness of ground walk training alone in improving exercise capacity is limited as walk training is often part of a comprehensive training program in COPD (Goldstein et al 1994, Ries et al 1995, Ringbaek

et al 2008). A previous randomised controlled trial has investigated the benefit of a home-based walk training program compared to usual care (no exercise training) (Hernandez et al 2000). In the study, participants in the walk training group trained six days per week for twelve weeks, unsupervised, and improved endurance walk time by 960 seconds (99%) more than the usual care group. Even though our study did not have a comparison group of no training, we showed a 68% greater improvement in the endurance walking time in the walk group compared to cycle BMS-754807 mw training. This further demonstrates the ability of walk training to improve endurance walking capacity in people with COPD. The other important finding of our study was that walk training and cycle training had very similar effects on peak walk capacity, peak and endurance cycle capacity and health-related Parvulin quality of life (Table 2 and Table 3). For example, the difference in treatment effect between the walk group and cycle group was only 1% in peak walking capacity (assessed

by the incremental shuttle walk test). Similarly, there was only a 6% difference in treatment effect in health-related quality of life (assessed by the total score of Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire) between the walk and cycle groups. Furthermore, the lower limits of the 95% CIs around the mean difference between walk and cycle training in the total score and the individual domain scores of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire were all above the minimal important difference of 2.5 for dyspnoea, 2 for fatigue, 3.5 for emotional function, 2 for mastery, and 10 for the total CRQ score. This shows that the effect of ground walk training on health-related quality of life was as clinically worthwhile as cycle training. We were unable to measure detailed physiological responses during the walk tests, thus limiting the ability to provide conclusive physiological explanations for the improvement in endurance walking capacity shown in the walk group.