Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38696528›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Prevalence, severity and impacts of breathlessness in Indian adults: An exploratory, nationally representative, cross-sectional online survey.

Slavica Kochovska, Rajam Iyer, Sungwon Chang, Diana Ferreira, Vanessa N Brunelli, Irina Kinchin, Danny J Eckert, Joseph Clark, Jacob Sandberg, Magnus Ekström and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Global disparities in chronic dyspnoea prevalence in population-based studies: a comprehensive literature review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Breathlessness in the general population.Current opinion in supportive and palliative care · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

12 authors.

Slavica KochovskaFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3531-0389
Rajam IyerP.D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sungwon ChangIMPACCT, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Diana FerreiraFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-8457
Vanessa N BrunelliFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-2254
Irina KinchinCentre for Health Policy and Management, Discipline of Public Health & Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0133-2763
Danny J EckertCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Joseph ClarkWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull University, Hull, United Kingdom.
Jacob SandbergDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Faculty of Medicine, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Magnus EkströmDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Faculty of Medicine, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
David CurrowFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-1250
Sujeet RajanBombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are no known estimates of the prevalence, severity and impacts from breathlessness in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to explore the prevalence, severity, self-attributed underlying conditions and impacts of breathlessness limiting exertion in community-dwelling adults in India. This exploratory, population-based online survey recruited a pre-planned sample of 3,000 adult respondents stratified by age, sex and rurality (quotas as per the 2011 Indian National Census). Measures included: demographics; breathlessness limiting exertion (modified Medical Research [mMRC] scale); health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L); and disability (World Health Organisation's Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item questionnaire [WHODAS-12]). Respondents (n = 3,046) had a mean age of 38 years (SD 15); 57% were male, 59% lived in rural areas and 33% had completed 12th grade. Breathlessness limiting exertion (mMRC ≥1) was reported by 44%, mostly attributed to poor nutrition (28%), lung conditions excluding tuberculosis (17%) or anaemia (13%). Compared to those without breathlessness, a higher proportion of people with breathlessness (mMRC ≥1) reported problems across all EQ-5D-5L dimensions. Most people reporting breathlessness (81%) indicated the symptom had adversely affected their normal activities. Disability scores (WHODAS-12 total and individual domains) increased as breathlessness worsened. To conclude, in India, conservative estimates indicate 626 million people live with breathlessness of whom 52 million people live with severe breathlessness. The symptom is associated with poorer health-related quality of life and marked disability, including reduced ability to perform daily activities.

Identifiers

PMID38696528
PMCPMC11065295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.