Trial reportPloS one2020
Effect of the trajectory of exertional breathlessness on symptom recall and anticipation: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03468205 (The Relating Experienced To Recalled Breathlessness Observational Study), which is not on this 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.
The Relating Experienced To Recalled Breathlessness Observational Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The modified Medical Research Council scale misclassifies exertional breathlessness among people referred for exercise testing.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Comparing recalled versus experienced symptoms of breathlessness ratings: An ecological assessment study using mobile phone technology.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2022Article
- How to Assess Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreathlessness is a major cause of physical limitation. Recalled breathlessness intensity may differ from experienced intensity and be influenced by the intensity trajectory including the 'peak-end rule'. The primary aim was to test if adding two minutes of low intensity exercise at the end of an exercise test would change the recalled breathlessness. Secondary aims included to analyse the impact of the peak and end exertional breathlessness intensity on breathlessness recall.
methodsRandomized controlled trial of 92 adults referred for exercise testing who were randomized (1:1), at test end, to 2 minutes of additional low intensity exercise (intervention; n = 47) or stopping at peak exertion (control; n = 45). Experienced breathlessness during the test and recalled intensity (30 min after the test) was assessed using the Borg CR10 scale.
resultsParticipants were aged a mean 59 years; 61% men; 79% reported a mMRC ≥1. There was no between-group difference in recalled breathlessness intensity, 5.51 ([95% CI] 5.00 to 6.01) vs. 5.73 (5.27 to 6.20; p = 0.52) in controls, even though the intervention group had a significantly lower end breathlessness (mean difference 0.96; 0.24 to 1.67; p = 0.009). Recalled exertional breathlessness was most strongly related to peak breathlessness (r2 = 0.43). When analyzed together, end breathlessness did not add any explanatory value above that of peak breathlessness.
conclusionAdding an episode of two minutes of lower exercise and breathlessness intensity at the end of an exercise test did not affect symptom recall, which was most strongly related to peak breathlessness intensity.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03468205).
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.