Cited by 445Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesRespiratory and Cough-Related Research

Efficacy of Nijmegen questionnaire in recognition of the hyperventilation syndrome

van Dixhoorn, J., Duivenvoorden, H.J.·1985·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

The pattern of complaints of patients with the hyperventilation syndrome (HVS) was studied on the basis of the Nijmegen HVS Questionnaire (van Doorn, Colla, Folgering). This list was completed by 75 patients with the clinical diagnosis HVS. Non-metric principal components analysis (NMPCA) showed that the structure was three-dimensional, the dimensions being labelled: Shortness of breath (HVS-1), Peripheral tetany (HVS-II), Central tetany (HVS-III). The questionnaire's differentiating ability was investigated by comparing HVS patients with non-HVS persons (80 persons employed in health care). All three components had an unequivocally high ability to differentiate between HVS and non-HVS. Application of linear analysis of discriminance to HVS-I, HVS-II and HVS-III together yielded 93% correct classifications. Statistical double cross-validation resulted in 90 and 94% correct classifications. The sensitivity of the Nijmegen Questionnaire in relation to the clinical diagnosis was 91% and the specificity 95%. It is concluded that the questionnaire is suitable as a screening instrument for early detection of HVS, and also as an aid in diagnosis and therapy planning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0022-3999(85)90042-x

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During validation the Nijmegen questionnaire was shown to have a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 95%.

    “During validation the Nijmegen questionnaire was shown to have a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 95% [25].”
  • The Nijmegen questionnaire comprises 16 questions; seven relate to respiratory symptoms, four to excessive ventilation, and five concern central nervous system symptoms relating to hypocapnia and central tetany.

    “This questionnaire, developed by a group in the Netherlands, comprises 16 questions about symptoms. Of these, seven relate to respiratory symptoms, four to excessive ventilation and five concern central nervous system symptoms relating to hypocapnia and “central tetany” [25].”
  • The Nijmegen Questionnaire's sensitivity and specificity to diagnose HVS have been established at 89% and 94%, respectively.

    “Its sensitivity and specificity to diagnose HVS have been established at 89% and 94%, respectively.26”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Dixhoorn, J., & Duivenvoorden, H. J.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1985-01
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
199-206
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053132661
Cited by
445
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 23
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
Keywords
hyperventilation syndrome, symptom assessment, dyspnea, screening tool, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Hyperventilation, Male, Somatoform Disorders, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review