4.6 Article

The prevalence of quadriceps weakness in COPD and the relationship with disease severity

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 81-88

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00104909

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; muscle strength

资金

  1. British Lung Foundation
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Wellcome Trust UK
  4. European Union
  5. National Institute for Health (UK)
  6. Moulton Foundation
  7. National Institute for Health Research [DHCS/07/07/009] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [DHCS/07/07/009] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quadriceps strength relates to exercise capacity and prognosis in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We wanted to quantify the prevalence of quadriceps weakness in COPD and hypothesised that it would not be restricted to patients with severe airflow obstruction or dyspnoea. Predicted quadriceps strength was calculated using a regression equation (incorporating age, sex, height and fat-free mass), based on measurements from 212 healthy subjects. The prevalence of weakness (defined as observed values 1.645 standardised residuals below predicted) was related to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage and Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score in two cohorts of stable COPD outpatients recruited from the UK (n=240) and the Netherlands (n=351). 32% and 33% of UK and Dutch COPD patients had quadriceps weakness. A significant proportion of patients in GOLD stages 1 and 2, or with an MRC dyspnoea score of 1 or 2, had quadriceps weakness (28 and 26%, respectively). These values rose to 38% in GOLD stage 4, and 43% in patients with an MRC Score of 4 or 5. Quadriceps weakness was demonstrable in one-third of COPD patients attending hospital respiratory outpatient services. Quadriceps weakness exists in the absence of severe airflow obstruction or breathlessness.

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

4.6
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