Cited by 148Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Predictors of dyspnoea prevalence: results from the BOLD study

Open access
Grønseth, Rune, Vollmer, William M., Hardie, Jon A., Ólafsdóttir, Inga Sif, Lamprecht, Bernd, Buist, A. Sonia, Gnatiuc, Louisa, Gulsvik, Amund +2 more·2014·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Dyspnoea is a cardinal symptom for cardiorespiratory diseases. No study has assessed worldwide variation in dyspnoea prevalence or predictors of dyspnoea. We used cross-sectional data from population-based samples in 15 countries of the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study to estimate prevalence of dyspnoea in the full sample, as well as in an a priori defined low-risk group (few risk factors or dyspnoea-associated diseases). Dyspnoea was defined by the modified Medical Research Council questions. We used ordered logistic regression analysis to study the association of dyspnoea with site, sex, age, education, smoking habits, low/high body mass index, self-reported disease and spirometry results. Of the 9484 participants, 27% reported any dyspnoea. In the low-risk subsample (n=4329), 16% reported some dyspnoea. In multivariate analyses, all covariates were correlated to dyspnoea, but only 13% of dyspnoea variation was explained. Females reported more dyspnoea than males (odds ratio ∼2.1). When forced vital capacity fell below 60% of predicted, dyspnoea was much more likely. There was considerable geographical variation in dyspnoea, even when we adjusted for known risk factors and spirometry results. We were only able to explain 13% of dyspnoea variation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00036813

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Breathlessness severity is not reliably predicted by the severity of airflow limitation/lung pathology in COPD.

    “Its intensity is not reliably predicted by the severity of lung pathology”

    From The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results report considerable overlap in lung-function measurements across dyspnoea grades, and the Discussion says adding spirometry had only a minor impact on models explaining dyspnoea. This supports the point that airflow measures do not reliably predict breathlessness intensity, but the analysis was population-based rather than specific to people with COPD, and it did not assess lung pathology beyond spirometry. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grønseth, R., Vollmer, W. M., Hardie, J. A., Ólafsdóttir, I. S., Lamprecht, B., Buist, A. S., Gnatiuc, L., Gulsvik, A., Johannessen, A., & Enright, P.
Affiliations
  • Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
  • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (US)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Paracelsus Medical University (AT)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2013-10-31
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
1610-1620
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W1981564791
Cited by
148
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5
FWCI
6.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • University of Kentucky
  • Wellcome Trust (085790, 085790/Z/08/Z)
  • South African Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
dyspnea, prevalence, obstructive lung disease, forced vital capacity, sex differences, regional variation, smoking, body mass index, spirometry, cardiopulmonary disease
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dyspnea, Female, Forced Expiratory Volume, Geography, Health Surveys, Humans, Lung Diseases, Obstructive, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Smoking, Spirometry, Vital Capacity, Body Mass Index, Prevalence, Odds Ratio, Internationality

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