Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26887590›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2016

The Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: comparison of different factor structures.

Amaia Bilbao, Antonio Escobar, Lidia García-Perez, Gemma Navarro, Raul Quirós

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 93 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

NCT05825755 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial for the Validation of Vitalera Platform

TypeinterventionalSponsorhumanITcareRan2024 to 2024Enrolled97ConditionsChronic Patients, Heart FailureArmsvitalera telemonitoring platform
NCT07688863 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Inspiratory Muscle Training on Maximal Inspiratory Pressure, Cardiopulmonary Capacity, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad Nacional Andres BelloRan2026 to 2027Enrolled60ConditionsHeart Failure, Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction, Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction, Muscle WeaknessArmsMechanical Pressure-Threshold IMT Device, PowerBreathe KH2 Electronic IMT Device, Sub-therapeutic Mechanical IMT Device (Sham)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Do the unlabeled response categories of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Amaia BilbaoResearch Unit, Basurto University Hospital (Osakidetza), Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. amaia.bilbaogonzalez@osakidetza.eus.
Antonio EscobarResearch Unit, Basurto University Hospital (Osakidetza), Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. antonio.escobarmartinez@osakidetza.eus.
Lidia García-PerezHealth Service Research Network on Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. lidia.garciaperez@sescs.es.
Gemma NavarroEpidemiologic Unit, Corporació Parc Tauli Clinic, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain. GNavarro@tauli.cat.
Raul QuirósHealth Service Research Network on Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. quiroslopez77@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is one of the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaires for patients with heart failure (HF). It provides scores for two dimensions, physical and emotional, and a total score. However, there are some concerns about its factor structure and alternatives have been proposed, some including a third factor representing a social dimension. The objectives of the present study were to analyze the internal structure of the MLHFQ and the unidimensionality of the total score, and to compare the different factor structures proposed.

methodsThe MLHFQ was given to 2565 patients with HF. The structural validity of the questionnaire was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Rasch analysis. These two approaches were also applied to the alternative structures proposed.

resultsThe CFA results for the hypothesized model of two latent factors and the Rasch analysis confirmed the adequacy of the physical and emotional scales. Rasch analysis for the total score showed only two problematic items. The results of the CFA for other two-factor structures proposed were not better than the results for the original structure. The Rasch analyses applied to the different social factors yielded the best results for Munyombwe's social dimension, composed of six items.

conclusionsOur results support the validity of using the MLHFQ physical, emotional and total scores in patients with HF, for clinical practice and research. In addition, they confirmed the existence of a third factor, and we recommend the use of Munyombwe's social factor.

Indexed as

AgedEmotionsFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Outcome AssessmentPhysical ExaminationQuality of LifeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26887590
PMCPMC4756518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.