The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of the visual analogue scale and modified Borg scale for the measurement of dyspnoea during exercise
Abstract
1. The intensity of breathlessness during exercise was measured in ten normal subjects using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a Borg scale to compare the use of the scales and their repeatability, both within the duration of a period of exercise and between tests. For each scale, subjects performed two exercise tests separated by a period of 2–6 weeks. Each exercise test consisted of two cycles of progressively increasing and decreasing workload. 2. All subjects felt confidently able to use both scales to quantify their feelings of breathlessness exclusively of other sensation. Equal preference was expressed for use of a particular scale. 3. With both scales there was a large intersubject variation in the relationship between dyspnoea score and minute ventilation (VE) (P < 0.01), and in the range of the scale used. 4. There was a good correlation between the VAS and Borg scores at each level of VE (r2 = 0.71), but the VAS score was used over a wider range than the Borg score. 5. The relationship between VE and the dyspnoea score measured by the two techniques was predominantly linear. The mean r2 for VAS score/VE was 0.68 (sd 0.19) and for Borg score/VE the mean r2 was 0.75 (sd 0.13). 6. The relationships VAS score/VE and Borg score/VE were unaffected by the direction in which the workload was varied (P > 0.05). 7. VE, measured at each work rate, did not differ between the two cycles (P > 0.05) or between the 2 days (P > 0.05). 8. With both scales, the slope of the VE-breathlessness relationship was slightly higher during the second half of the exercise compared with the first (0.05 < P > 0.01). 9. The scores with both scales were lower in the second test compared with the first (P < 0.01): Borg 16% lower, VAS 27% lower. 10. Measurements of dyspnoea made with the Borg scale appeared to have greater stability than VAS measurements and to correlate with VE a little better.
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
Cited by
Balady, G. J., Arena, R., Sietsema, K., Myers, J., Coke, L., Fletcher, G. F., Forman, D., Franklin, B., Guazzi, M., Gulati, M., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e3181e52e69 · Cited by 1,964
Enright, P. L., McBurnie, M. A., Bittner, V., Tracy, R. P., McNamara, R., Arnold, A., & Newman, A. B. (2003) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.123.2.387 · Cited by 788
Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients With Heart Failure and Inspiratory Muscle Weakness
Dall’Ago, P., Chiappa, G. R. S., Guths, H., Stein, R., & Ribeiro, J. P. (2006) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.09.052 · Cited by 429
Mechanisms of activity-related dyspnea in pulmonary diseases
O’Donnell, D. E., Ora, J., Webb, K. A., Laveneziana, P., & Jensen, D. (2009) · Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.resp.2009.01.010 · Cited by 235
The impact of anxiety and depression on outpatients with asthma
Ciprandi, G., Schiavetti, I., Rindone, E., & Ricciardolo, F. L. M. (2015) · Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.anai.2015.08.007 · Cited by 177
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilson, R. C., & Jones, P. W.
- Venue
- Clinical Science
- Publisher
- Portland Press Ltd.
- Published
- 1989-03-01
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 277-282
- ISSN
- 0143-5221 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-8736
- OpenAlex
- W137057924
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A comparison of the visual analogue scale and modified Borg scale for the measurement of dyspnoea during exercise. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1042/cs0760277
- The paper
- Wilson, R. C., & Jones, P. W. (1989). A comparison of the visual analogue scale and modified Borg scale for the measurement of dyspnoea during exercise. Clinical Science. https://doi.org/10.1042/cs0760277
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.