Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26538368›Full record

Observational studyNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015

Features of COPD patients by comparing CAT with mMRC: a retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Wei-Chang Huang, Ming-Feng Wu, Hui-Chen Chen, Jeng-Yuan Hsu, TOLD Group

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Variation in Assignment of the COPD Patients into a GOLD Group According to Symptoms Severity.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Treatment response in COPD: does FEVERJ open research · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. The role of CAT in evaluating the response to treatment of patients with AECOPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Adherence to a COPD treatment guideline among patients in Hong Kong.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wei-Chang HuangDivision of Chest Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Ming-Feng WuDivision of Chest Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Hui-Chen ChenDivision of Chest Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jeng-Yuan HsuDivision of Critical Care and Respiratory Therapy, Department of Internal Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
TOLD Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe group assignment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may differ depending on whether the COPD assessment test (CAT) or modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) is used.

aimsThis study intended to clarify how different patient characteristics influence the differences, to determine the relationships between CAT and mMRC and to characterise COPD patients by both CAT and mMRC.

methodsThis was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. The data, collected by Taiwan Obstructive Lung Disease consortium, were managed and analysed.

resultsOf the 757 participants, COPD group assignment was not identical as well as no substantial agreement presented when categorised based on the cut-point CAT score ⩾10 and each mMRC cut-point. In all, 38.2% of participants had discordant group assignments together with a lower mean CAT score, less severe airway obstruction and less severe airflow limitation compared with those with concordant group assignments. In the discordant group, the CAT⩾10/mMRC 0-1 subgroup had more wheezing than CAT<10/mMRC⩾2 subgroup. Only moderate correlations existed between CAT and mMRC. More-symptom groups and combined high-risk group had better correlations than less-symptom groups and combined low-risk group, respectively. A modest negative correlation existed between forced expiratory volume in 1 s percentage (FEV1%) predicted and CAT score and between FEV1% predicted and mMRC scale in parallel with a significant positive relationship existing between the CAT score and mMRC scale. Notably, a significant proportion of COPD patients with each scale of mMRC had health status impairment.

conclusionsThe Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease committee should redefine the applications of CAT and mMRC in the management of COPD.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDyspneaFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRespiratory SoundsRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesTaiwan

Identifiers

PMID26538368
PMCPMC4633725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.