Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29872285›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2018

A comparison of the assessment of health status between CCQ and CAT in a Chinese COPD clinical population: a cross-sectional analysis.

Zijing Zhou, Aiyuan Zhou, Yiyang Zhao, Jiaxi Duan, Ping Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Systematic Literature Review of the Humanistic Burden of COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Relationship Between Morning Symptoms and the Risk of Future Exacerbations in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Treatment response in COPD: does FEVERJ open research · 2019
    Article
  8. The role of CAT in evaluating the response to treatment of patients with AECOPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zijing ZhouDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Aiyuan ZhouDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yiyang ZhaoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jiaxi DuanDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Ping ChenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Both the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) were recommended as comprehensive symptom measures by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung disease. The main objective of this work was to compare the evaluation of symptom severity with the CAT and the CCQ and find a cutoff value of the CCQ for the Chinese clinical population. Methods: Patients diagnosed with stable COPD in the outpatient department who completed the CAT and CCQ were enrolled from November 2015 to December 2016. Scores of 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31-40 represent low, medium, high, and very high impact level, respectively, by CAT. Scores of the CCQ can be considered as acceptable (CCQ<1), acceptable for moderate disease (1≤CCQ<2), instable-severe limited (2≤CCQ<3), and very instable-very severe limited (CCQ≥3). Results: According to the CAT, only 20.4% of patients belonged to the high (21≤CAT≤30) and very high (31≤CAT≤40) impact levels, which were statistically lower than those of the CCQ, which classified over half of the population (51.1%) into the instable-severe limited (2≤CCQ<3) and very instable-very severe limited (CCQ≥3) categories ( Conclusion: Compared with the CAT, the CCQ was more likely to classify the patients into more severe categories, and 1.5 might be a better cutoff point for the CCQ than 1.0. Both the CAT and the overall CCQ with its 3 domains were able to discriminate between groups of patients that differ in COPD severity.

Indexed as

Health StatusSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedBody Mass IndexChinaCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSymptom AssessmentCATCCQchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCOPDthe Clinical COPD Questionnairethe COPD Assessment Test

Identifiers

PMID29872285
PMCPMC5973380
OpenAlexW2804472963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.