Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38152083›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2023

The modified Medical Research Council scale misclassifies exertional breathlessness among people referred for exercise testing.

David Gustafsson, Viktor Elmberg, Linus Schiöler, Dennis Jensen, Magnus Ekström

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David GustafssonDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Institution for Clinical Sciences in Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1836-0135
Viktor ElmbergDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Institution for Clinical Sciences in Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1831-9306
Linus SchiölerOccupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Dennis JensenClinical Exercise and Respiratory Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Magnus EkströmDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Institution for Clinical Sciences in Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7227-5113
Lund University · SEMcGill University Health Centre · CAUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Exertional breathlessness is a major symptom in cardiorespiratory disease and is often assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire. The mMRC might underestimate exertional breathlessness in people with impaired exercise capacity who have reduced their physical activity to avoid the symptom. We aimed to evaluate the ability of mMRC to detect abnormally high exertional breathlessness or abnormally low exercise capacity during incremental cycle exercise testing (IET). Methods: A secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial of outpatients aged 18 years or older referred for IET was carried out. Participants completed the mMRC before IET. Abnormally high exertional breathlessness was defined as a breathlessness (Borg 0-10) intensity response more than the upper limit of normal. Abnormally low exercise capacity was defined using published reference equations. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and discriminative ability of each mMRC rating to detect each outcomewas calculated. Results: 92 participants were included; the mean age was 59 years, 61% were male, and 64% and 15% had mMRC 1 and ≥2, respectively. An mMRC ≥2 had the highest accuracy (71%) to detect abnormally high exertional breathlessness, with a specificity of 93% but a sensitivity of only 28%, failing to identify 72% of people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness. The accuracy, specificity and sensitivity for abnormally low exercise capacity was 64%, 88% and 19%, respectively. Conclusion: Among people referred for clinical exercise testing, the mMRC dyspnoea scale misclassified exertional breathlessness and exercise capacity assessed using cycle IET, with substantial underdetection. A mMRC dyspnoea rating of 0-1 does not preclude the presence of abnormally high exertional breathlessness or abnormally low exercise capacity.

Identifiers

PMID38152083
PMCPMC10752288
OpenAlexW4389794461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.