The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is responsive to change in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has not been established. We aimed to identify the MCID for the CAT using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. METHODS: We did three studies at two centres in London (UK) between April 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2012. Study 1 assessed CAT score before and after 8 weeks of outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD who were able to walk 5 m, and had no contraindication to exercise. Study 2 assessed change in CAT score at discharge and after 3 months in patients admitted to hospital for more than 24 h for acute exacerbation of COPD. Study 3 assessed change in CAT score at baseline and at 12 months in stable outpatients with COPD. We focused on identifying the minimum clinically important improvement in CAT score. The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) were measured concurrently as anchors. We used receiver operating characteristic curves, linear regression, and distribution-based methods (half SD, SE of measurement) to estimate the MCID for the CAT; we included only patients with paired CAT scores in the analysis. FINDINGS: In Study 1, 565 of 675 (84%) patients had paired CAT scores. The mean change in CAT score with pulmonary rehabilitation was -2·5 (95% CI -3·0 to -1·9), which correlated significantly with change in SGRQ score (r=0·32; p<0·0001) and CRQ score (r=-0·46; p<0·0001). In Study 2, of 200 patients recruited, 147 (74%) had paired CAT scores. Mean change in CAT score from hospital discharge to 3 months after discharge was -3·0 (95% CI -4·4 to -1·6), which correlated with change in SGRQ score (r=0·47; p<0·0001). In Study 3, of 200 patients recruited, 164 (82%) had paired CAT scores. Although no significant change in CAT score was identified after 12 months (mean 0·6, 95% CI -0·4 to 1·5), change in CAT score correlated significantly with change in SGRQ score (r=0·36; p<0·0001). Linear regression estimated the minimum clinically important improvement for the CAT to range between -1·2 and -2·8 with receiver operating characteristic curves consistently identifying -2 as the MCID. Distribution-based estimates for the MCID ranged from -3·3 to -3·8. INTERPRETATION: The most reliable estimate of the minimum important difference of the CAT is 2 points. This estimate could be useful in the clinical interpretation of CAT data, particularly in response to intervention studies. FUNDING: Medical Research Council and UK National Institute of Health Research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vestbo, J., Hurd, S. S., Agustí, A. G., Jones, P. W., Vogelmeier, C., Anzueto, A., Barnes, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Martinez, F. J., Nishimura, M., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201204-0596pp · Cited by 15,983
PAUWELS, R. A., BUIST, A. S., CALVERLEY, P. M. A., JENKINS, C. R., & HURD, S. S. (2001) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2101039 · Cited by 6,587
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test
Jones, P. W., Harding, G., Berry, P., Wiklund, I., Chen, W.-H., & Kline Leidy, N. (2009) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00102509 · Cited by 3,198
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 · Cited by 2,362
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire
JUNIPER, E. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 · Cited by 1,824
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods
Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., & Schuler, T. C. (2007) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · Cited by 1,662
Development of a shuttle walking test of disability in patients with chronic airways obstruction.
Singh, S. J., Morgan, M. D., Scott, S., Walters, D., & Hardman, A. E. (1992) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.47.12.1019 · Cited by 1,455
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00071-2 · Cited by 862
St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID
Jones, P. W. (2005) · COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease · doi:10.1081/copd-200050513 · Cited by 855
Cited by
Sarcopenia in COPD: prevalence, clinical correlates and response to pulmonary rehabilitation
Jones, S. E., Maddocks, M., Kon, S. S. C., Canavan, J. L., Nolan, C. M., Clark, A. L., Polkey, M. I., & Man, W. D.-C. (2015) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206440 · Cited by 435
Self-citationRandomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy in COPD
Heslop-Marshall, K., Baker, C., Carrick-Sen, D., Newton, J., Echevarria, C., Stenton, C., Jambon, M., Gray, J., Pearce, K., Burns, G., et al. (2018) · ERJ Open Research · doi:10.1183/23120541.00094-2018 · Cited by 97
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Farver-Vestergaard, I., O'Toole, M. S., O'Connor, M., Løkke, A., Bendstrup, E., Basdeo, S. A., Cox, D. J., Dunne, P. J., Ruggeri, K., Early, F., et al. (2018) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.02082-2017 · Cited by 86
The impact of integrated disease management in high-risk COPD patients in primary care
Ferrone, M., Masciantonio, M. G., Malus, N., Stitt, L., O’Callahan, T., Roberts, Z., Johnson, L., Samson, J., Durocher, L., Ferrari, M., et al. (2019) · npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41533-019-0119-9 · Cited by 68
Hornikx, M., Demeyer, H., Camillo, C. A., Janssens, W., & Troosters, T. (2015) · BMC Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12890-015-0126-8 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Kon, S. S. C., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Nolan, C. M., Clark, A. L., Dickson, M. J., Haselden, B. M., Polkey, M. I., & Man, W. D.-C.
- Venue
- The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 195-203
- ISSN
- 2213-2600 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101849970
- Cited by
- 668
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 29.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s2213-2600(14)70001-3
- The paper
- Kon, S. S. C., Canavan, J. L., Jones, S. E., Nolan, C. M., Clark, A. L., Dickson, M. J., Haselden, B. M., Polkey, M. I., & Man, W. D.-C. (2014). Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(14)70001-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.