Cited by 161Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Nijmegen Questionnaire and dysfunctional breathing

Open access
van Dixhoorn, Jan, Folgering, Hans·2015·ERJ Open Research

Abstract

The Nijmegen Questionnaire was introduced over 30 years ago as a screening tool to detect patients with hyperventilation complaints that could benefit from breathing regulation through capnographic feedback [1]. It was validated against the Hyperventilation Provocation Test [2], on the assumption at the time that hypocapnia was causally related to complaints. In later studies, the correlation between Nijmegen Questionnaire scores and carbon dioxide tensions appeared highly variable. The diagnosis of hyperventilation syndrome (HVS) was questioned and slowly disappeared. Nevertheless, the Nijmegen Questionnaire has remained in use and we have noticed even a recent increase in studies in clinical medicine as well as requests for permission to use the Nijmegen Questionnaire in new studies. We would like to formally declare here that the Nijmegen Questionnaire is not copyrighted and is free to use. It has been or will be translated, as far as we know, into Greek, Farsi, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, Spanish, Filipino and Chinese. However, the validity of the Nijmegen Questionnaire is often a point of discussion and we would like to make a few comments on that issue [3]. The Nijmegen Questionnaire is useful to quantify and assess the normality of subjective sensations <http://ow.ly/MBJj1>

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 · 10.1183/23120541.00001-2015

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • The study's sample size was justified: assuming an expected average Nijmegen score of 34, aiming to reduce to 23, expected difference 11 points, with SD 21.5, alpha 5%, beta 10%, required 41 patients; to account for 10% missing/withdrawals, 46 patients needed to be included.

    “Assuming an expected average Nijmegen score of 34 among patients with HVS,43 and aiming to reduce the score of these same patients to the normal range (i.e., score of 23), the expected difference was set at 11 points.”

    From Physiotherapy Education and Breathing Retraining for Patients With Hyperventilation Syndrome: An Observational Study (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [2]Doorn PV, Colla P, Folgering HTM Een vragenlijst voor hyperventilatieklachten [A questionnaire for hyperventilation syndrome]. De Psycholoog 1983; 18: 573– 577.
  2. [16]Van Dixhoorn J Hyperventilation and dysfunctional breathing. Biol Psychol 1997; 46: 90– 91.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Dixhoorn, J., & Folgering, H.
Venue
ERJ Open Research
Published
2015-05
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
00001-2015
ISSN
2312-0541 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152691399
Cited by
161
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • ERJ Open Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Nijmegen questionnaire, hyperventilation syndrome, dysfunctional breathing, screening tool, questionnaire validity, hypocapnia, carbon dioxide tension, respiratory control

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