ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of Dyspnea in Critically Ill Patients: A Comparative Analysis of Evaluation Scales.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS), Intensive Care RDOS (IC-RDOS), and Mechanical Ventilation RDOS (MV-RDOS) as potential markers of dyspnea in ICU patients by describing their relationship with the Dyspnea Visual Analog Scale (D-VAS). Materials and methods A researcher and a trained nurse independently assessed ICU patients simultaneously. One researcher assessed the RDOS (IC/MV-RDOS) and the depth of sedation. An objective evaluation using the observational D-VAS was simultaneously performed by a trained nurse. Results The correlation coefficients for each scale were 0.338 for the D-VAS and RDOS, 0.239 for the IC-RDOS, and 0.237 for the MV-RDOS, indicating a low correlation. The prediction of self-reported dyspnea showed that each scale's area under the curve (AUC) as a predictor of D-VAS ≥4 was 0.79 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.71-0.87) for RDOS, 0.77 (95% CI 0.68-0.84) for IC-RDOS, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.81) for MV-RDOS. Conclusions The objective rating scales RDOS, IC-RDOS, and MV-RDOS can predict subjective dyspnea to a certain extent; however, they have limitations in accurately discriminating dyspnea intensity.
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.