Observational studyChest2020
COPD Assessment Test in Bronchiectasis: Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Psychometric Validation: A Prospective Study.
Observational study in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient report outcome measures for Spanish-speaking adults with bronchiectasis: systematic review of measurement properties.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Psychometrics of health-related quality of life questionnaires in bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The European respiratory journal · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Recruitment for a digitally based follow-up program for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- The importance of symptoms in bronchiectasis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Clinical, Functional, and Psychosocial Profiles of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Etiotypes: A Taxonomy-Based Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Clinical efficacy of sitafloxacin-containing regimens for Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Amikacin liposome inhalation suspension for refractory Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease at 6 months post initiation.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- The Effects of Hybrid Tele Airway Clearance in Bronchiectasis Patients: A Case Series.Reports (MDPI) · 2024Article
- COPD Assessment Test and risk of readmission in patients with bronchiectasis: a prospective cohort study.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Psychological distress and its associated factors among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Hunan, China: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Pandemic on Patients with Bronchiectasis: A Multicenter Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Bronchiectasis Associated with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2022Article
- Validation of the Korean Version of the Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth-related quality of life (QoL) is one of the most important end points in bronchiectasis (BE). However, the majority of health-related QoL questionnaires are time-consuming or not validated in BE. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is an easy-to-use questionnaire. The objective of this study was to perform a complete validation of the CAT in BE.
methodsThis was an observational, multicenter, prospective study in patients with BE. Psychometric properties of the CAT were measured: internal consistency (Cronbach α), repeatability (test-retest; intraclass correlation coefficient), discriminant validity (correlation with severity scores), convergent validity (correlation with some validated QoL questionnaire and other clinical variables of interest), longitudinal validity (measuring before and after each exacerbation during follow-up to determine the sensitivity to change and responsiveness), predictive validity to future exacerbations, and finally minimum clinically important difference.
resultsNinety-six patients were included and followed up for 1 year. Their mean age was 62.2 (15.6) years (79.2% women). The CAT showed excellent internal consistency (α, 0.95) and repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95). The validity of the CAT was excellent in all the measures (almost all with a Pearson coefficient > 0.40) except for the correlations with severity scores (Pearson coefficient between 0.22 and 0.26). Sensitivity to change before and after exacerbations was set at between 5.4 and 5.8 points. A CAT value ≥ 10 points showed prognostic value for patients with more than one exacerbation, and finally the minimum clinically important difference was set at 3 points.
conclusionsThe CAT presented excellent psychometric properties and is a questionnaire that is easy to use and interpret in patients with BE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31446064What 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.