ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2014
Patient-reported outcomes in primary care patients with COPD: psychometric properties and usefulness of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). A cross-sectional study.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease with considerable consequences for patients' daily lives. The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) was designed to measure these consequences in daily practice. Although the CCQ is widely used, its original structure has never been tested.
aimsThis study examines the psychometric properties of the CCQ with regard to its latent structure in a sample of primary care patients with COPD.
methodsTwo cross-sectional studies were conducted; in study 1 (N=243) exploratory analyses, including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Mokken scale analysis, were performed to explore the latent structure of the CCQ. In study 2 (N=244), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the model fit of the structure found in study 1.
resultsBoth EFA and Mokken scale analysis revealed a structure of two dimensions ('general impact' α=0.91 and 'cough' α=0.84). This structure, however, was not confirmed in study 2, nor was the original structure. However, subsequently removing items that violated the assumption of a normal response distribution did result in an excellent model fit with two dimensions measuring 'dyspnoea' and 'cough' (CFA: comparative fit index (CFI) 0.98; normed fit index (NFI) 0.97; root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.08 (0.04)).
conclusionsIn primary care, factor analyses on the CCQ revealed a two-component structure measuring 'general impact', and 'cough'. A shortened and more specific version of the CCQ could be regarded as a useful instrument to screen for exacerbations by measuring dyspnoea, coughing and producing phlegm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.