ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2026
Validation of the Paediatric Nijmegen Questionnaire in Sweden: A Self-Screening Tool for Dysfunctional Breathing.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ) is used to identify Dysfunctional Breathing (DB) in individuals with asthma. However, it has not been validated for use in children and adolescents.
objectiveThis study aimed to validate a Swedish NQ for this population.
methodsParticipants aged 10-17 years with asthma were included (n = 124). In Cohort I (n = 22), audiotaped semi-structured interviews were conducted to adapt and refine the questionnaire analyzed by qualitative content analysis, resulting in NQ version 1. Forty-eight participants (11 from Cohort I, 37 new) then completed version 1 to assess internal redundancy, consistency (Spearman's Rho, Cronbach's alpha) and item clarity, leading to version 2. Cohort II (n = 60 new) completed NQ version 2 alongside the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ) and Childhood/Adult Asthma Control Test (cACT/ACT) to assess construct validity. Cohort III (n = 54, 48 from Cohort II, 6 new) completed NQ version 2 again after 2 weeks for test-retest reliability.
resultsContent analysis prompted revisions for clarity and relevance. Internal redundancy ranged from r
conclusionThe Swedish Paediatric NQ seems to be a valid and reliable tool for identifying DB in children and adolescents with asthma.
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.