ArticleJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia2020
The Brazilian Portuguese-language version of the Manchester Respiratory Activities of Daily Living questionnaire: construct validity, reliability, and measurement error.
Article in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo test the construct validity, reliability, and measurement error of the Brazilian Portuguese-language version of the Manchester Respiratory Activities of Daily Living (MRADL) questionnaire in patients with COPD.
methodsWe evaluated 50 patients with COPD, among whom 30 were men, the mean age was 64 ± 8 years, and the median FEV1 as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV1%predicted) was 38.4% (interquartile range, 29.1-57.4%). Pulmonary function and limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) were assessed by spirometry and by face-to-face application of the MRADL, respectively. For the construct validity analysis, we tested the hypothesis that the total MRADL score would show moderate correlations with spirometric parameters. We analyzed inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, inter-rater measurement error, and test-retest measurement error.
resultsThe total MRADL score showed moderate correlations with the FEV1/FVC ratio, FEV1 in liters, FEV1%predicted, and FVC%predicted, all of the correlations being statistically significant (r = 0.34, r = 0.31, r = 0.42, and r = 0.38, respectively; p < 0.05 for all). For the reliability and measurement error of the total MRADL score, we obtained the following inter-rater and test-retest values, respectively: two-way mixed-effects model intraclass correlation coefficient for single measures, 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93); agreement standard error of measurement, 1.03 and 0.97; smallest detectable change at the individual level, 2.86 and 2.69; smallest detectable change at the group level, 0.40 and 0.38; and limits of agreement, -2.24 to 1.96 and -2.65 to 2.69.
conclusionsIn patients with COPD in Brazil, this version of the MRADL shows satisfactory construct validity, satisfactory inter-rater/test-retest reliability, and indeterminate inter-rater/test-retest measurement error.
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.