Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30789020›Full record

ReviewChronic respiratory disease

Functional status measures for the COPD patient: A practical categorization.

Suzanne Claire Lareau, Felicity Clair Blackstock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chronic respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Suzanne Claire Lareau1 College of Nursing, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9491-1769
Felicity Clair Blackstock2 Department of Physiotherapy, School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to review available functional status measures (FSMs) validated for use in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population and categorizing the measures by their commonalities to formulate a framework that supports clinicians in the selection and application of FSMs. A literature review identifying valid and reliable measures of functional status for people with COPD was undertaken. Measures were thematically analyzed and categorized to develop a framework for clinical application. A variety of measures of activity levels exist, with 35 included in this review. Thematic categorization identified five categories of measures: daily activity, impact, surrogate, performance-based, and disability-based measures. The vast variety of FSMs available for clinicians to apply with people who have COPD may be overwhelming, and selection must be thoughtfully based on the nature of the population being studied/evaluated, and aims of evaluation being conducted, not simply as a standard measure used at the institution. Psychometric testing is a critical feature to a strong instrument and issues of reliability, validity, and responsiveness need to be understood prior to measurement use. Contextual nature of measures such as language used and activities measured is also important. A categorical framework to support clinicians in the selection and application of FSMs has been presented in this article.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingDisability EvaluationPhysical Functional PerformanceQuality of LifeHumansKarnofsky Performance StatusPsychometricsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCOPDFunctional status measurespractical categoriespsychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID30789020
PMCPMC6318724

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.