ArticleHealth science reports2022
Reliability and preliminary reference values for the Total Faulty Breathing Scale (TFBS): A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity and reliability of outcome measures to assess dysfunctional breathing: a systematic review.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Pooled it
- Reliability and preliminary reference values for the Total Faulty Breathing Scale (TFBS): A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The evaluation of breathing function is crucial in the clinical examination of the respiratory system. The Total Faulty Breathing Scale (TFBS) could be used in clinical settings to quantify the measurement of breathing dysfunction. Reliability data for the TFBS are available for males, but there is a requirement to determine reliability for females and to develop reference values. The aim of this study, therefore, was to determine the reliability in females and to establish the preliminary reference values for the TFBS. Methods: Twenty-three healthy female participants for reliability and 44 (7 male and 37 female) participants for preliminary reference values participated in this cross-sectional study. For both aspects of the study, participants were instructed to breathe at their own pace with no specific instruction. Then each participant was observed carrying out normal breathing for a period of 10 breaths and deep breathing for a period of 10 breaths while being assessed with the TFBS. Results: Intrarater and interrater reliability of the TFBS showed a kappa value of 0.769 and 0.751, respectively, indicating substantial agreement for female participants. The preliminary reference categories for TFBS were reported to be normal for 20 (45.5%) participants and mild faulty breathing for the remaining 24 (54.4%) participants. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggested that TFBS was reliable to measure breathing function among female participants, and the reference categories may be helpful in the identification of normal and faulty breathing.
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.