ArticleThoracic research and practice2023
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Nijmegen Questionnaire in Asthma.
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the Paediatric Nijmegen Questionnaire in Sweden: A Self-Screening Tool for Dysfunctional Breathing.The clinical respiratory journal · 2026Article
- The Turkish Version of the Self Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire: Cross-cultural Adaptation, Validity and Reliability.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ) enables the assessment and identification of symptoms related to respiratory dysfunction and hyperventilation syndrome. The aim was to investigate the validity of the Turkish version of the NQ in asthmatics. MATERIAL AND
methodsFifty-four individuals with asthma were included. Spirometry was performed. Dyspnea was assessed using the modified Borg and modified Medical Research Council scales. Breath-holding time was recorded. End-tidal carbon dioxide was measured using a portable capnograph. Oxygen saturation and heart rate were recorded. Asthma Control Test was used to evaluate the asthma control level. Quality of life was assessed using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Nottingham Health Profile. Beck Depression Inventory was used to determine depression.
resultsBartlett's test of sphericity (360.749, df 105, P < .001) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (0.752) for 15-item NQ supported a single-factor model with 36.38% of explained variability through principal component analysis and explanatory factor analysis. For 15-item NQ with this single-factor model, Cronbach's alpha was 0.872, and the test-retest reliability was 0.628. There was a significant negative correlation between NQ and Asthma Control Test (r = -0.448), and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (r = -0.743) and a significant positive association with Beck Depression Inventory (r = 0.477), Nottingham Health Profile-energy (r = 0.370), Nottingham Health Profile-pain (r = 0.313), Nottingham Health Profile-sleep (r = 0.294), and Nottingham Health Profile-physical activity scores (r = 0.406) (P < .05).
conclusionsThe 15-item Turkish version of the NQ is valid and reliable in asthmatics. Individuals with uncontrolled asthma have higher NQ scores than those with well-controlled asthma. NQ is associated with asthma control level, asthma-related quality of life, health profile, and depression.
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.