Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27274226›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2016

Investigating sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and Modified Medical Research Council scale according to GOLD using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire cutoff 25 (and 20) as reference.

Ioanna G Tsiligianni, Harma J Alma, Corina de Jong, Danijel Jelusic, Michael Wittmann, Michael Schuler, Konrad Schultz, Boudewijn J Kollen, Thys van der Molen, Janwillem Wh Kocks

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07214441 (Evaluating the Feasibility and Preliminary Effects of a Remotely Delivered Dyad-Based Intervention Incorporating Resistance Training to Improve Fitness in Individuals With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and in Their Partners), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

NCT07214441 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Feasibility and Preliminary Effects of a Remotely Delivered Dyad-Based Intervention Incorporating Resistance Training to Improve Fitness in Individuals With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and in Their Partners

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of South CarolinaRan2025 to 2026Enrolled20ConditionsLung Cancer (Non-Small Cell), Self-management Behavior, Physical Activity, StressArmsBreathe Easier+
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Mepolizumab for Eosinophil-Associated COPD: Analysis of METREX and METREO.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sleep quality in COPD patients: correlation with disease severity and health status.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Variation in Assignment of the COPD Patients into a GOLD Group According to Symptoms Severity.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. 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

10 authors.

Ioanna G TsiligianniDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany.
Harma J AlmaDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany.
Corina de JongDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany.
Danijel JelusicKlinik Bad Reichenhall, Center for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Michael WittmannKlinik Bad Reichenhall, Center for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Michael SchulerDepartment of Medical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Konrad SchultzKlinik Bad Reichenhall, Center for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Boudewijn J KollenDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany.
Thys van der MolenDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany.
Janwillem Wh KocksDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) strategy document, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale are recommended for the assessment of symptoms using the cutoff points of CCQ ≥1, CAT ≥10, and mMRC scale ≥2 to indicate symptomatic patients. The current study investigates the criterion validity of the CCQ, CAT and mMRC scale based on a reference cutoff point of St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) ≥25, as suggested by GOLD, following sensitivity and specificity analysis. In addition, areas under the curve (AUCs) of the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale were compared using two SGRQ cutoff points (≥25 and ≥20). MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo data sets were used: study A, 238 patients from a pulmonary rehabilitation program; and study B, 101 patients from primary care. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the correspondence between the recommended cutoff points of the questionnaires.

resultsSensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥25 were: study A, 0.99, 0.43, and 0.96 for CCQ ≥1, 0.92, 0.48, and 0.89 for CAT ≥10, and 0.68, 0.91, and 0.91 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.87, 0.77, and 0.9 for CCQ ≥1, 0.76, 0.73, and 0.82 for CAT ≥10, and 0.21, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥20 were: study A, 0.99, 0.73, and 0.99 for CCQ ≥1, 0.91, 0.73, and 0.94 for CAT ≥10, and 0.66, 0.95, and 0.94 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.8, 0.89, and 0.89 for CCQ ≥1, 0.69, 0.78, and 0.8 for CAT ≥10, and 0.18, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2.

conclusionBased on data from these two different samples, this study showed that the suggested cutoff point for the SGRQ (≥25) did not seem to correspond well with the established cutoff points of the CCQ or CAT scales, resulting in low specificity levels. The correspondence with the mMRC scale seemed satisfactory, though not optimal. The SGRQ threshold of ≥20 corresponded slightly better than SGRQ ≥25, recently suggested by GOLD 2015, with the established cutoff points for the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale.

Indexed as

AgedArea Under CurveFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveReference StandardsRespiratory Function TestsSelf ReportSensitivity and Specificitychronic obstructivehealth statuspulmonary disease

Identifiers

PMID27274226
PMCPMC4876797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.