ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2016
Adaptation and validation of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for the Netherlands.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Polish adaptation of the CAMbridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR).Cardiology journal · 2020Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review for use in patients with pulmonary hypertension in Colombia.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2019Article
- Pulmonary hypertension: the importance of a multidisciplinary approach.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2016Article
- A minimal clinically important difference measured by the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review for patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension.Pulmonary circulationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) is the first disease-specific instrument for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) to assess patient-perceived symptoms, activity limitations and quality of life. To be able to use this questionnaire in the Netherlands, the aim of the study was to translate and validate this instrument for the Dutch-speaking population.
methodsFirst the CAMPHOR was translated into Dutch (by means of a bilingual and a lay panel) and field-tested by means of cognitive debriefing interviews with ten PAH patients. For psychometric evaluation, 80 patients with PAH or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) were asked to complete the CAMPHOR twice over a two-week period. To test for construct validity, participants also completed the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP).
resultsThe Dutch version of the CAMPHOR showed high internal consistency for all scales (Cronbach's alpha 0.89-0.91) and excellent reproducibility over two weeks (reliability coefficients 0.87-0.91). Concurrent validity showed that the CAMPHOR scales correlated as expected with the NHP scales. The CAMPHOR was able to distinguish between patient groups based on self-reported general health status, disease severity and NYHA classification demonstrating evidence of known group validity. The CAMPHOR activity limitations scale correlated moderately with the distance walked during the 6‑minute walk test (r = -0.47, p < 0.01) and the symptoms scale with the Borg dyspnoea score (r = 0.51, p < 0.01).
conclusionThe Dutch version of the CAMPHOR is a reliable and valid measure of quality of life and health status in patients with PAH and CTEPH is recommended for use in routine care and in clinical research.
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.