ArticleERJ open research2023
The modified Medical Research Council scale misclassifies exertional breathlessness among people referred for exercise testing.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual reality in adults with respiratory diseases experiencing dyspnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Chronic thromboembolism phenotypes after acute pulmonary embolism: identification with the SEARCH algorithm.The European respiratory journal · 2026Observational
- When to Best Assess Breathlessness Abnormality During Incremental Cardiopulmonary Cycle Exercise Testing.Chest · 2026Article
- Anxiety and depression impact exertional breathlessness in daily life and during exercise testing: the CanCOLD study.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Breaking barriers: novel reference equations for the six-minute walk distance and work in obese Chinese adults.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Empowering the Patient With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Optimizing Inhalation Technique.Cureus · 2025Article
- Exertional breathlessness related to medical conditions in middle-aged people: the population-based SCAPIS study of more than 25,000 men and women.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Abnormally high exertional breathlessness predicts mortality in people referred for incremental cycle exercise testing.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.