Trial reportBMJ open2019
Thresholds for clinically important deterioration versus improvement in COPD health status: results from a randomised controlled trial in pulmonary rehabilitation and an observational study during routine clinical practice.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on lung function and quality of life in pulmonary tuberculosis survivors with post-tuberculosis lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Determining the safety and effectiveness of Tai Chi: a critical overview of 210 systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Assessment of risk factors responsible for rapid deterioration of lung function over a period of one year in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delays Clinically Important Deterioration Compared with Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Early COPD: a Post Hoc Analysis of the TONADOAdvances in therapy · 2021Trial
- Commentary: "Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease" by Dankers M et al. inFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Preconditions Contributing to Interprofessional Collaboration in the Management of COPD in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol delivered via a dry powder inhaler in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results from a multi-centre, open-label, randomised study.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a progressive disease. Preventing deterioration of health status is therefore an important therapy goal. (Minimal) Clinically Important Differences ((M)CIDs) are used to interpret changes observed. It remains unclear whether (M)CIDs are similar for both deterioration and improvement in health status. This study investigates and compares these clinical thresholds for three widely-used questionnaires. DESIGN AND
settingData were retrospectively analysed from an inhouse 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) randomised controlled trial in the German Klinik Bad Reichenhall (study 1), and observational research in Dutch primary and secondary routine clinical practice (RCP) (study 2).
participantsPatients with COPD aged ≥18 years (study 1) and aged ≥40 years (study 2) without respiratory comorbidities were included for analysis. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were completed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months. A Global Rating of Change scale was added at follow-up. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine clinically relevant thresholds.
resultsIn total, 451 patients were included from PR and 207 from RCP. MCIDs for deterioration ranged from 1.30 to 4.21 (CAT), from 0.19 to 0.66 (CCQ), and from 2.75 to 7.53 (SGRQ). MCIDs for improvement ranged from -3.78 to -1.53 (CAT), from -0.50 to -0.19 (CCQ), and from -9.20 to -2.76 (SGRQ). Thresholds for moderate improvement versus deterioration ranged from -5.02 to -3.29 vs 3.89 to 8.14 (CAT), from -0.90 to -0.72 vs 0.42 to 1.23 (CCQ), and from -15.85 to -13.63 vs 7.46 to 9.30 (SGRQ).
conclusionsMCID ranges for improvement and deterioration on the CAT, CCQ and SGRQ were somewhat similar. However, estimates for moderate and large change varied and were inconsistent. Thresholds differed between study settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Routine Inspiratory Muscle Training within COPD Rehabilitation trial: #DRKS00004609; MCID study: #UMCG201500447.
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.