CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesSmoking Behavior and Cessation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence and Burden of Breathlessness in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Managed in Primary Care

Open access
Müllerová, Hana, Lu, Chao, Li, Hao, Tabberer, Maggie·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085540PMC PMC3888425
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Breathlessness is a primary clinical feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to describe the frequency of and factors associated with breathlessness in a cohort of COPD patients identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a general practice electronic medical records database. METHODS: Patients with a record of COPD diagnosis after January 1 2008 were identified in the CPRD. Breathlessness was assessed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale, with scoring ranging from 1-5, which has been routinely administered as a part of the regular assessment of patients with COPD in the general practice since April 2009. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression estimated independent associations with dyspnoea. Negative binomial regression evaluated a relationship between breathlessness and exacerbation rate during follow-up. RESULTS: The total cohort comprised 49,438 patients diagnosed with COPD; 40,425 (82%) had any MRC dyspnoea grade recorded. Of those, 22,770 (46%) had moderate-to-severe dyspnoea (MRC ≥ 3). Breathlessness increased with increasing airflow limitation; however, moderate-to-severe dyspnoea was also observed in 32% of patients with mild airflow obstruction. Other factors associated with increased dyspnoea grade included female gender, older age (≥ 70 years), obesity (BMI ≥ 30), history of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations, and frequent visits to the general practitioner. Patients with worse breathlessness were at higher risk of COPD exacerbations during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-to-severe dyspnoea was reported by >40% of patients diagnosed with COPD in primary care. Presence of dyspnoea, including even a perception of mild dyspnoea (MRC = 2), was associated with increased disease severity and a higher risk of COPD exacerbations during follow-up.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0085540

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Cohort selection: flow diagram. Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FEV1/FVC, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity; GPRD, General Practice Research Database; MRC, Medical Research Council.
Figure 1 Cohort selection: flow diagram. Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FEV1/FVC, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity; GPRD, General Practice Research Database; MRC, Medical Research Council.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Distribution of MRC dyspnoea grade in the COPD cohort (first MRC grade from the study start). Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 equals to mMRC 0.
Figure 2 Distribution of MRC dyspnoea grade in the COPD cohort (first MRC grade from the study start). Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 equals to mMRC 0.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 MRC dyspnoea grade distribution by stage of airflow limitation (first MRC grade from study start). Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 equals to mMRC 0.
Figure 3 MRC dyspnoea grade distribution by stage of airflow limitation (first MRC grade from study start). Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 equals to mMRC 0.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Bivariate relationship between FEV1% predicted and MRC grade: scatter plot. Abbreviations: FEV1%predicted, forced expiratory volume in one second; Stage I: FEV1≥80% predicted; Stage II: ≥50% to <80% FEV1 predicted; Stage III: ≥30% to <50% FEV1 predicted; Stage IV: >30% FEV1 predicted; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 being equal to mMRC 0.
Figure 4 Bivariate relationship between FEV1% predicted and MRC grade: scatter plot. Abbreviations: FEV1%predicted, forced expiratory volume in one second; Stage I: FEV1≥80% predicted; Stage II: ≥50% to <80% FEV1 predicted; Stage III: ≥30% to <50% FEV1 predicted; Stage IV: >30% FEV1 predicted; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 being equal to mMRC 0.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Line plot of mean BMI and MRC grade. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 equals to mMRC 0.
Figure 5 Line plot of mean BMI and MRC grade. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; MRC, Medical Research Council. MRC scoring 1–5 equals to mMRC grades 0–4 with MRC 1 equals to mMRC 0.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Show all 43 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Müllerová, H., Lu, C., Li, H., & Tabberer, M.
Affiliations
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Müllerová, Hana
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-01-10
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e85540
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0085540
PMC
PMC3888425
OpenAlex
W2062066840
Cited by
139
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
GlaxoSmithKline
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea, MRC dyspnoea scale, COPD exacerbations, airflow obstruction, disease severity, obesity, primary care
MeSH terms
Aged, Dyspnea, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Respiratory Function Tests, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Databases, Factual, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Public Health Surveillance, Patient Outcome Assessment

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