ArticleERJ open research2026
Expected breathlessness is overestimated compared to experienced: a mobile ecological momentary assessment study.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Chronic breathlessness is common and often leads to avoidance of symptom-provoking activities. Expectations of breathlessness influence behaviour and symptom perception, but the accuracy of these expectations remains unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between expected and experienced breathlessness, the moderating role of mental states, determinants of expectation accuracy and the influence of recent symptoms on future expectations. Methods: In this longitudinal study, 83 participants with chronic breathlessness rated expected and experienced breathlessness (on 0-10 numerical rating scales (NRS)) using a mobile ecological momentary assessment app over 7 days. Associations were analysed using linear and mixed regression models. Results: Expected breathlessness was significantly associated with subsequently experienced breathlessness (β=0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.68) but was systematically overestimated (mean±sd expected 4.7±1.9 Conclusion: Individuals with chronic breathlessness overestimated future breathlessness by a mean of 2 NRS points. Indication of depressive symptoms influenced the strength of the association, but accuracy appears unaffected by mental state indicators. These findings highlight the need to address and recalibrate symptom expectations in clinical care.
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.