ArticleChronic respiratory disease2018
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Breathlessness Beliefs Questionnaire.
Article in Chronic respiratory disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03517826 (Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of Breathlessness Beliefs), which is not on this map. 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.
Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of Breathlessness Beliefs
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship between dyspnea-related kinesiophobia and physical activity in people with COPD: a moderated mediation model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Latent Profile Analysis and Influencing Factors Associated with the Coping Styles of Dyspnea-Related Fear Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Breathlessness Beliefs and Related Factors in Male Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Thoracic research and practice · 2023Article
- Relationship among depressive symptoms, dyspnea-related fear and sarcopenia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The mediating effect of physical activity.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Breathlessness Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) for use among patients with respiratory diseases in China. The BBQ is an instrument for assessing specific dyspnoea-related fears and may have predictive value for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcomes beyond general anxiety measures. This instrument has not previously been translated into Chinese or tested in mainland China. This was a cross-sectional validation study with a 1-week test of reproducibility. A total of 252 Chinese patients with respiratory diseases recruited from pulmonary outpatient and inpatient departments completed the BBQ. Demographic characteristics, pulmonary function and degree of dyspnoea were also measured. Cronbach's α was 0.82 for the total BBQ score; 0.72 for the somatic focus subscale and 0.73 for the activity avoidance subscale. Test-retest reliability was satisfactory, with intraclass correlation coefficient scores for the BBQ overall and for each subscale ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 ( p < 0.001). After exploratory factor analyses, the Chinese version of the BBQ was found to be similar to the original Dutch version. The Chinese version of the BBQ is a reliable tool to assess dyspnoea-related fear in patients with respiratory diseases in mainland China.
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.