4.2 Article

The comparison of different dyspnoea scales in patients with COPD

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 532-538

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00658.x

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; dyspnoea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives (i) to compare the relationship between different dyspnoea scales and physical and clinical parameters of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); and (ii) to determine the most suitable scale among these scales for this patient group. Methods Forty patients with COPD [mean 1st second forced expiratory volume (FEV1), 49.16 +/- 2.33% predicted], aged 53-85 participated in this study. The severity of dyspnoea was assessed with different five scales [Modified Borg Scale (MBS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale (MRCS), Baseline Dyspnoea Index (BDI) and Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD)]. As clinical parameters, respiratory function was measured by means of pulmonary function test and arterial blood gas analysis. As physical parameters, age and body mass index was recorded. Results Patient's dyspnoea severities were 1.59 +/- 2.75, 2.03 +/- 2.82, 2.14 +/- 1.44, 6.81 +/- 4.07, 4.56 +/- 2.47 for MBS, VAS, MRCS, BDI, OCD, respectively (P = 0.08). It was proven that only %FEV1 had a correlation with MRCS (r = -0.67, P = 0.01) and BDI (r = 0.58, P = 0.02). In addition to these determinations MRCS, MBS and VAS had a strong correlation defining their relationships with each other (P < 0.05). Conclusions MRCS and BDI could assess dyspnoea during daily activities, so these scales showed strength correlation with physical and clinical values. Briefly MRCS is the most suitable dyspnoea scale for the patients with COPD, moreover, BDI, as the second suitable scale, is correlated only with MRCS. Based on these findings, we recommended that MRCS and BDI are appropriate scales for evaluation of dyspnoea in the patients with COPD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据