Clinical Utility of Measures of Breathlessness
Abstract
Background The clinical utility of measures of dyspnea has been debated in the health care community. Although breathlessness can be evaluated with various instruments, the most effective dyspnea measurement tool for patients with chronic lung disease or for measuring treatment effectiveness remains uncertain. Understanding the evidence for the validity and reliability of these instruments may provide a basis for appropriate clinical application. Objective Evaluate instruments designed to measure breathlessness, either as single-symptom or multidimensional instruments, based on psychometrics foundations such as validity, reliability, and discriminative and evaluative properties. Classification of each dyspnea measurement instrument will recommend clinical application in terms of exercise, benchmarking patients, activities of daily living, patient outcomes, clinical trials, and responsiveness to treatment. Methods Eleven dyspnea measurement instruments were selected. Each instrument was assessed as discriminative or evaluative and then analyzed as to its psychometric properties and purpose of design. Results Descriptive data from all studies were described according to their primary patient application (ie, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or other patient populations). The Borg Scale and the Visual Analogue Scale are applicable to exertion and thus can be applied to any cardiopulmonary patient to determine dyspnea. All other measures were determined appropriate…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Suitable positioning may enhance ventilation, perfusion, oxygenation, and mobilization of tracheobronchial secretions via gravitational effects [23, 30].
“Suitable positioning may be used to enhance ventilation, perfusion, oxygenation, and mobilization of tracheobronchial secretions via gravitational effects [23, 30].”
From Effects of short-term breathing exercises on respiratory recovery in patients with COVID-19: a quasi-experimental study (2022) · cites this paper as [30]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Cullen, D. L., & Rodak, B.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Venue
- Respiratory Care
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 986-993
- ISSN
- 0020-1324 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W114957466
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Respiratory Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- dyspnea, psychometric properties, reliability and validity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, lung transplantation, Borg scale, visual analogue scale, health-related quality of life, treatment response, activities of daily living
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Dyspnea, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Lung Diseases, Obstructive, Male, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Respiratory Function Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Respiratory Mechanics
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