ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2018
Comparison of patient-reported outcomes during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Patient Education Lead the Way? Head-To-Head Comparison of EXACT and CERT for Early Recognition of Acute COPD Exacerbations.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Article
- Association Between Peripheral Blood NLR, PLR, and EXACT-PRO Scores in Patients with Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Observational
- Health Status Progression Measured Using Weekly Telemonitoring of COPD Assessment Test Scores Over 1 Year and Its Association With COPD Exacerbations.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2024Article
- Early detection and prediction of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical Development and Research Applications of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to investigate which patient-reported outcome measure was the best during the recovery phase from severe exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
methodsThe Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Dyspnoea-12 (D-12) and the Hyland Scale (global scale) were recorded every week for the first month and at 2 and 3 months in 33 hospitalised subjects with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD).
resultsOn the day of admission (day 1), the internal consistency of the EXACT total score was high (Cronbach's alpha coefficient=0.89). The EXACT total, CAT, SGRQ total and Hyland Scale scores obtained on day 1 appeared to be normally distributed. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed for the EXACT total and SGRQ total scores. The EXACT total score improved from 50.5±12.4 to 32.5±14.3, and the CAT score also improved from 24.4±8.5 to 13.5±8.4 during the first 2 weeks, and the effect sizes (ES) of the EXACT total and CAT score were -1.40 and -1.36, respectively. The SGRQ, Hyland Scale and D-12 were less responsive, with ES of -0.59, 0.96 and -0.90, respectively. DISCUSSION: The EXACT total and CAT scores are shown to be more responsive measures during the recovery phase from severe exacerbation. Considering the conceptual framework, it is recommended that the EXACT total score may be the best measure during the recovery phase from AECOPD. The reasons for the outstanding responsiveness of the CAT are still unknown.
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.