Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35735170›Full record

ArticleMedeniyet medical journal2022

How to Utilize CAT and mMRC Scores to Assess Symptom Status of Patients with COPD in Clinical Practice?

Esra Ertan Yazar, Elif Yelda Niksarlioglu, Burcu Yigitbas, Mesut Bayraktaroglu

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medeniyet medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07339280 ("The Effect of Probiotics on the Degree of Dyspnea, Lung Function, and Inflammatory Mediators in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07339280 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

"The Effect of Probiotics on the Degree of Dyspnea, Lung Function, and Inflammatory Mediators in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)."

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital of SplitRan2026 to 2030Enrolled60ConditionsCOPD, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), Probiotic, Probiotic SupplementArmsProbiotic Capsule, placebo capsule
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Esra Ertan YazarIstanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Chest Diseases, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-6081-3463
Elif Yelda NiksarliogluUniversity of Health Sciences Turkey, Yedikule Chest Diseases and Chest Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-6119-6540
Burcu YigitbasUniversity of Health Sciences Turkey, Yedikule Chest Diseases and Chest Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-1367-5253
Mesut BayraktarogluMemorial Bahcelievler Hospital, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-9063-1118

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to investigate the compatibility of modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients in terms of evaluation of their symptom status. Methods: The study was planned as a single-center, cross-sectional study. Statistically four separate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of CAT scoring were generated for mMRC scores of 1 to 4. Results: Two hundred twenty eight patients with stable COPD, mean age 64.2±8.2 and 88.6% male were included. A strong positive correlation was detected between CAT and mMRC (r=0.60, p<0.001). However, it was observed that 32 patients had mMRC<2 but CAT≥10, while 21 patients had CAT<10 but mMRC≥2. Thus, in 53 patients CAT and mMRC scores were not identical in terms of assessed symptom status. According to the ROC analysis, the mMRC scores of 1 to 4 were most compatible with the CAT scores of 10, 10, 15, and 20, respectively. Conclusions: Expanding current data represents that CAT score of 10 could be more compatible with mMRC score of 1. Moreover we think although a high mMRC or CAT score may be sufficient to assign patients to high symptom groups, it is needed to evaluate mMRC and CAT together to assign a patient to a low symptom group. In this way misclassification of the patients with high symptoms due to insufficient symptom evaluation as if they have low symptoms can be prevented.

Indexed as

CATCOPDGOLDmMRCsymptom assessment

Identifiers

PMID35735170
PMCPMC9234363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.