ArticleGalen medical journal2020
The Optimal Cut-off Score of the Nijmegen Questionnaire for Diagnosing Hyperventilation Syndrome Using a Bayesian Model in the Absence of a Gold Standard.
Article in Galen medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breathing Pattern Dysfunction and Physical Activity of Patients Following a Median Sternotomy After Hospital Discharge: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The Thai version of the Nijmegen questionnaire.Heliyon · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Nijmegen questionnaire is one of the most common tools for diagnosing hyperventilation syndrome (HVS). However, there is no precise cut-off score for differentiating patients with HVS from those without HVS. This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of Nijmegen questionnaire for detecting patients with HVS and to provide the best cut-off score for differentiating patients with HVS from normal individuals using a Bayesian model in the absence of a gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 490 students from a rehabilitation center in Tehran, Iran, were asked to participate in this case study of HVS from January to August 2018.
resultsA total of 215 students (40% male and 60% female) completed the Nijmegen questionnaire. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.93 (male: 0.95; female: 94) for all of the cut-off scores. The optimal cut-off score of ≥20 could predict HVS with sensitivity of 0.91 (male: 0.99; female: 91) and specificity of 0.92 (male: 96; female: 89).
conclusionAccurate differentiation of HVS patients from individuals without HVS can be accomplished by estimating the cut-off score of Nijmegen questionnaire based on a non-parametric Bayesian model.
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.