ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2017
Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency: results of a systematic selection process.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- In-person and online application of the Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire: are they interchangeable?Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022Article
- Effects of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Promotion Mode Intervention Combined with Oxygen Therapy on Cardiopulmonary Function and Blood Gas Analysis Indexes of COPD Patients with Cor Pulmonale.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures in interstitial lung disease: where to go from here?European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021Review
- Article
- Clinical Development and Research Applications of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Assessing health status over time: impact of recall period and anchor question on the minimal clinically important difference of copd health status tools.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in "easiness to complete" or "importance of issues raised in questionnaires". Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.COPD: QUESTIONNAIRES EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two questionnaires commonly used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are equally suitable for routine primary care. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Janwillem Kocks from the University Medical Center Groningen, administered both the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) to 95 patients with the lung disease. These two tests are the most comprehensive assessments recommended by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease for guiding treatment decisions. The researchers found that both tests took approximately 95-100 s on average. Both tests were also equally easy to complete and provided similar types of information. Most patients said they had no preference for either one, and they filled out both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires in much the same way. The authors conclude that both tests seem fine for routine use.
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.