ArticleThoracic research and practice2025
Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Breathlessness Catastrophizing Scale in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Breathlessness Catastrophizing Scale (BCS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). MATERIAL AND
methodsSeventy patients with COPD (55 male/15 female, mean age: 68.7±7.3 years, FEV1%: 45.4±19.5) were included in this methodological study. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's α, and intra-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlations between the BCS and Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRCS), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Breathlessness Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ), and St. the George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores were assessed for convergent validity. Known-group comparisons were performed according to COPD stage and dyspnea severity using the independent sample t-test.
resultsInternal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α=0.941), and the ICC for reliability was 0.955. The BCS score was correlated with the mMRCS (r=0.745), CAT (r=0.652), HADS anxiety (r=0.556) and depression (r=0.588), the BBQ (r=-0.567), and SGRQ (r=0.550-0.634) scores (
conclusionThe Turkish version of the BCS is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating catastrophic dyspnea in patients with COPD.
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.