ArticleRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2022
Comparing recalled versus experienced symptoms of breathlessness ratings: An ecological assessment study using mobile phone technology.
Article in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in uni-dimensional breathlessness measures and thresholds for clinical response in a randomised controlled trial in people with chronic breathlessness: an exploratory study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Trial
- Expected breathlessness is overestimated compared to experienced: a mobile ecological momentary assessment study.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Article
- Bidirectional Associations Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Daily Symptoms in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Longitudinal Observational Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Observational
- Chronobiology in breathlessness across 24 h in people with persistent breathlessness.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- RESP-FIT: A Technology-Enhanced Combined Inspiratory and Expiratory Muscle Strength Training Intervention for Adults With COPD.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2024Article
- Use of Ecological Momentary Assessment to Measure Dyspnea in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Article
- Modified-release morphine or placebo for chronic breathlessness: the MABEL trial protocol.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Comparing recalled versus experienced symptoms of breathlessness ratings: An ecological assessment study using mobile phone technology.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRecall of breathlessness is important for clinical care but might differ from the experienced (momentary) symptoms. This study aimed to characterize the relationship between momentary breathlessness ratings and the recall of the experience. It is hypothesized that recall is influenced by the peak (worst) and end (most recent) ratings of momentary breathlessness (peak-end rule).
methodsThis study used mobile ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) for assessing breathlessness in daily life through an application installed on participants' mobile phones. Breathlessness ratings (0-10 numerical rating scale) were recorded throughout the day and recalled each night and at the end of the week. Analyses were performed using regular and mixed linear regression.
resultsEighty-four people participated. Their mean age was 64.4 years, 60% were female and 98% had modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) ≥ 1. The mean number of momentary ratings of breathlessness provided was 7.7 ratings/participant/day. Recalled breathlessness was associated with the mean, peak and end values of the day. The mean was most closely associated with the daily recall. Associations were strong for weekly values: peak breathlessness (beta = 0.95, r
conclusionOver 1 week, recalled breathlessness is most strongly influenced by the peak breathlessness; over 1 day, it is mean breathlessness that participants most readily recalled.
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.