ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2019
Relating Experienced To Recalled breathlessness Observational (RETRO) study: a prospective study using a mobile phone application.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03468205 (The Relating Experienced To Recalled Breathlessness Observational Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
The Relating Experienced To Recalled Breathlessness Observational Study
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expected breathlessness is overestimated compared to experienced: a mobile ecological momentary assessment study.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Chronobiology in breathlessness across 24 h in people with persistent breathlessness.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Striving for moments of easier breathing despite being trapped in breathlessness: meanings of feeling well for women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease stage III or IV.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023Article
- Thoughts on the end of life in patients with oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A qualitative interview study.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Associations in Perceived Health and Persistent Breathlessness: A Cross-Sectional Study.Palliative medicine reports · 2023Article
- Comparing recalled versus experienced symptoms of breathlessness ratings: An ecological assessment study using mobile phone technology.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2022Article
- Prevalence and severity of differing dimensions of breathlessness among elderly males in the population.ERJ open research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breathlessness, the subjective sensation of breathing discomfort, is common and appears in the daily life of people with cardiorespiratory diseases. Physicians often rely on patient's history based on symptom recall. The relation between recalled and experienced breathlessness is still poorly understood. This paper presents the protocol for a study primarily aimed at evaluating the relationship between experienced breathlessness and (1) recalled breathlessness and (2) predicted future breathlessness. Methods: A mobile phone application will be used to collect data during daily life. Medically stable participants, ≥18 years of age with mean daily breathlessness of Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 3/10 and able to use a mobile phone with internet will rate their breathlessness intensity on a 0-10 NRS prompted the user several times daily for 1 week. Participants will recall their breathlessness each day and week. Multivariable random effects regression models will be used for statistical analyses. Results: Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. Discussion: This protocol describes a study aimed at investigating previously unknown areas of the experience and recall of breathlessness using a new method of data collection. Registration details: Prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Nr: NCT03468205). Ethics and dissemination: The study has received ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Review Board Lund (DNr 2017/149). After a general study information including that participation is entirely voluntary, participants will answer the eligibility criteria and be asked to consent to participate before entering the study questions. Written informed consent to participate will be obtained for participants in the clinical sub-cohort. Participation can be discontinued at the discretion of the participant in which case no further data will be collected.
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.