ArticleSAGE open medicine2021
Reliability and validity of the multidimensional dyspnea profile in hospitalized Chinese patients with respiratory diseases.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDyspnea is a multidimensional experience similar to pain and is one of the most common clinical presentations in patients with respiratory diseases. Accurately evaluating the experience of dyspnea allows nurses and physicians to deliver better medical services to patients. The multidimensional dyspnea profile emphasizes the psychosocial factors of dyspnea and assesses immediate discomfort, sensory qualities, and the emotional responses of patients with dyspnea. At present, the validity, reliability, and test-retest reliability of the multidimensional dyspnea profile in patients with respiratory diseases in China are unclear.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the validity, reliability, and test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile and to assess the convergent validity between the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile and the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale.
methodsThe factorial construct, intraclass correlations, internal consistency, and convergent validity of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile was evaluated using data from 231 inpatients with dyspnea from the respiratory department of a hospital. In the principal component analysis stage, 131 inpatients were evaluated. In the test-retest reliability analysis stage, 50 out of the 131 patients responded to the questionnaire again. In the confirmatory factor analysis, 100 inpatients from an independent sample were assessed.
resultsThe principal component analysis showed that the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile had a two-factor structure: the immediate perceptual-related problem factor (6 items) and the emotional response-related problem factor (5 items). The convergent validity between the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile and the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale was significant and acceptable based on the average variance extracted (r = .56, p < .001). The confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good model fit and provided support for the construct validity of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile. Overall, the internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile were good.
conclusionThe 11-item Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile has acceptable validity and reliability in patients with respiratory diseases in China. In the future, more studies should be performed to further explore its clinical application.
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.