ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Accuracy of Respiratory Distress Observational Scale (RDOS) in the emergency department.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dyspnea is a personal perception of breathing discomfort. The patient self-reported numerical rating scale (NRS) from 1 to 10 is an accurate tool for assessing dyspnea severity following the definition of dyspnea. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) is an alternative dyspnea severity measurement for patients with impaired communication abilities. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of RDOS and determine the optimal cutoff point in the emergency department (ED). This cross-sectional observational study was nested in a previous study investigating the inter-rater reliability of RDOS in the EDs of two academic hospitals. The participants were emergency physicians who were the first responders to adult patients presenting with dyspnea. The patient reports NRS, while the physician assesses RDOS using the record forms separately. The study excluded patients with impaired communication. A total of 122 patients and 44 emergency physicians rated RDOS. The overall severity of dyspnea was rated by the total median self-reported NRS as 7 (5, 8), and the total median RDOS as 5 (3, 7). For the diagnostic performance, the highest AUC is 0.783 (95% CI 0.684-0.883) if the RDOS cutoff point is ≥ 4, distinguishing mild from moderate-to-severe dyspnea. This cutoff point yields a sensitivity of 65.7% and a specificity of 90.9%. The RDOS is a potential observational tool in assessing dyspnea severity for emergency patients who are able to communicate. The RDOS ≥ 4 cutoff points differentiate mild from moderate-to-severe dyspnea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573901What 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.