The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale.
Open accessAbstract
Reproducibility and validity are prerequisites for a useful clinical scale. We therefore prospectively tested the reproducibility and validity of the New York Heart Association criteria and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society criteria for the assessment of cardiac functional class and compared these criteria with a new Specific Activity Scale based on the metabolic costs of specific activities. The New York Heart Association estimates made by two physicians had a reproducibility of only 56%, and only 51% of the estimates agreed with treadmill exercise performance. Functional estimates based on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society criteria were significantly more reproducible (73%), but not significantly more valid. The Specific Activity Scale was as reproducible as the Canadian Cardiovascular Society criteria, and its 68% validity was significantly higher than the validities of the other systems. The easily administered Specific Activity Scale was equally reproducible and valid when used by a nonphysician. It was especially better than the other systems for the evaluation of true class II patients and was significantly less likely to underestimate treadmill performance. Although no set of questions can perfectly predict exercise tolerance, the Specific Activity Scale deserves wider prospective testing.
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
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives.
Light, R. J. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031643 · Cited by 747
Cited by
2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure
Yancy, C. W., Jessup, M., Bozkurt, B., Butler, J., Casey, D. E., Drazner, M. H., Fonarow, G. C., Geraci, S. A., Horwich, T., Januzzi, J. L., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.019 · Cited by 12,536
Heidenreich, P. A., Bozkurt, B., Aguilar, D., Allen, L. A., Byun, J. J., Colvin, M. M., Deswal, A., Drazner, M. H., Dunlay, S. M., Evers, L. R., et al. (2022) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001063 · Cited by 4,922
2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure
Heidenreich, P. A., Bozkurt, B., Aguilar, D., Allen, L. A., Byun, J. J., Colvin, M. M., Deswal, A., Drazner, M. H., Dunlay, S. M., Evers, L. R., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.12.012 · Cited by 2,862
Yancy, C. W., Jessup, M., Bozkurt, B., Butler, J., Casey, D. E., Drazner, M. H., Fonarow, G. C., Geraci, S. A., Horwich, T., Januzzi, J. L., et al. (2013) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e31829e8776 · Cited by 2,106
Goldberger, J. J., Cain, M. E., Hohnloser, S. H., Kadish, A. H., Knight, B. P., Lauer, M. S., Maron, B. J., Page, R. L., Passman, R. S., Siscovick, D., et al. (2008) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.189375 · Cited by 1,450
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldman, L., Hashimoto, B., Cook, E. F., & Loscalzo, A.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1981-12
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1227-1234
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2060568260
- Cited by
- 978
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.64.6.1227
- The paper
- Goldman, L., Hashimoto, B., Cook, E. F., & Loscalzo, A. (1981). Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.64.6.1227
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.
