Cited by 54Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and Validation

Clinical Utility of Measures of Breathlessness

Cullen, Deborah L, Rodak, Bernadette·2002·Respiratory Care

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

Crossref · 10.1177/002013240204700902

Cites

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?

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
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