ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2020
Development and Validation of the Modified Patient-Reported Outcome Scale for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (mCOPD-PRO).
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicentre development and two-stage validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.iScience · 2026Article
- The effect of Chronic Care Model-based follow-up on self-efficacy and patient-reported outcomes in COPD patients: a randomized controlled study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Association of Patient-Reported Outcome Patterns and Major Clinical Factors with Frailty in Stable COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of computerized adaptive testing for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient-reported outcome measurement.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Article
- Association of Frailty with Patient-Report Outcomes and Major Clinical Determinants in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Observational
- Psychometric validation of the fear of progression questionnaire-short form in acute pancreatitis patients.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Further Refinement is Required for Patient-Reported Outcome Scales for Respiratory Diseases Based on Traditional Chinese Medicine Theory for Applicability.International journal of general medicine · 2023Review
- A Longitudinal Study of Trajectories and Factors Influencing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Scale for Tension-Type Headache.Frontiers in neurology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The present study aimed to develop and validate the modified patient-reported outcome scale for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (mCOPD-PRO) for measuring the health status in COPD using both classical test theory and item response theory. Methods: A working group was initially established. The conceptual framework of COPD-PRO was modified. Subsequently, items related to COPD were gathered and selected through expert consultation, patient cognitive interviewing, classical test theory methods, as well as the item response theory method. Finally, the formed mCOPD-PRO was evaluated in terms of reliability, content validity, construct validity, criterion validity, known groups validity, and feasibility. Results: A total of 155 items were gathered in the item bank, and two rounds of expert consultation, interviews with patients and field survey were conducted. The mCOPD-PRO included 27 items in the physiological, psychological, and environmental domains. The Cronbach's alpha of the instrument was 0.954. The correlation coefficients between the scores of each item and its domain scores ranged from 0.429 to 0.902. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the comparative fit index, incremental fit index, non-normed fit index, standardized root-mean-square residual, and root-mean-square error of approximate were 0.91, 0.91, 0.90, 0.11, and 0.16, respectively. The correlation coefficient between mCOPD-PRO total scores and COPD assessment test scores and the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale scores was 0.771 and 0.651, respectively. The differences in mCOPD-PRO total scores and domain scores between the mild/moderate group and severe/extremely severe group of patients with COPD were both statistically significant ( Conclusion: The 27-item mCOPD-PRO is well developed and has good reliability, validity, and feasibility. It may provide a scientific and effective instrument for the clinical evaluation of COPD.
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.