ArticleJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia
Brazilian version of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, administered by interview: reliability and validity measurement properties.
Article in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire for use in Brazil.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024Article
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 reliability, validity, and interpretability of the Brazilian version of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) in patients with COPD.
methodsFifty patients with COPD completed the CCQ by interview on two occasions. At the first visit, the CCQ was administered twice, by two different raters, approximately 10 min apart; the patients also underwent spirometry and were administered the COPD Assessment Test, the modified Medical Research Council scale, and Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). At the second visit (1-2 weeks later), the CCQ was readministered. We tested the hypothesis that the CCQ total score would correlate positively with the total and domain SGRQ scores (r ≥ 0.5).
resultsOf the 50 patients, 30 (60%) were male. The mean age was 66 ± 8 years, and the mean FEV1 was 44.7 ± 17.9% of the predicted value. For all CCQ items, Cronbach's alpha coefficient (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.91-0.96). To analyze the interrater reliability and test-retest reliability of the CCQ, we calculated the two-way mixed effects model/single measure type intraclass correlation coefficient (0.97 [95% CI: 0.95-0.98] and 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86-0.95], respectively); the agreement standard error of measurement (0.65 for both); the smallest detectable change at the individual level (1.81 and 1.80, respectively) and group level (0.26 and 0.25, respectively); and the limits of agreement (-0.58 to 0.82 and -1.14 to 1.33, respectively). The CCQ total score correlated positively with all SGRQ scores (r ≥ 0.70 for all).
conclusionsThe Brazilian version of the CCQ showed an indeterminate measurement error, as well as satisfactory interrater/test-retest reliability and construct validity.
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.