Observational studyJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia2019
Disability and its clinical correlates in pulmonary hypertension measured through the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0: a prospective, observational study.
Observational study in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cancer: Unveiling Parallels in Epidemiology, Clinical Pathways, and Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- From Breathlessness to Better Living: Transforming COPD Care with Home-based Pulmonary Rehabilitation.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2025Article
- Adapting World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Nepal.BMC psychology · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterise the degree of disability in pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients based on the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0).
methodA prospective and observational study of patients with documented PH (N = 46). Patients completed the WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire during a scheduled routine clinical visit, and their demographic and clinical characteristics were retrieved from electronic medical records (EMR). In subsequent visits, selected clinical variables were registered to assess disease progression.
resultsWHODAS 2.0 scores were indicative of mild to moderate disability for the domains of mobility (22.0 ± 23.2), life activities (23.7 ± 25.5), and participation in society (17.2 ± 15.9), as well as total WHODAS 2.0 score (15.3 ± 15.2). For the domains of cognition (9.1 ± 14.1), self-care (8.3 ± 14.4), and interpersonal relationships (11.7 ± 15.7), scores were lower. Disability scores were, generally, proportional to the PH severity. The main baseline correlates of disability were World Health Organisation (WHO) functional class, fatigue, dyspnoea, 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP). Baseline WHODAS 2.0 scores showed significant associations with disease progression. However, this effect was not transversal to all domains, with only a few domains significantly associated with disease progression variables.
conclusionsThis PH population shows mild disability, with higher degree of disability in the domains of mobility and life activities. This study is the first one to assess disability in PH using WHODAS 2.0. Further studies should apply this scale to larger PH populations with suitable representations of more severe PH forms.
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.