↓ Skip to main content

Measuring respiratory symptoms of COPD: performance of the EXACT- Respiratory Symptoms Tool (E-RS) in three clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring respiratory symptoms of COPD: performance of the EXACT- Respiratory Symptoms Tool (E-RS) in three clinical trials
Published in
Respiratory Research, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12931-014-0124-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy K Leidy, Lindsey T Murray, Brigitta U Monz, Linda Nelsen, Mitchell Goldman, Paul W Jones, Elizabeth J Dansie, Sanjay Sethi

Abstract

BackgroundSymptomatic relief is an important treatment goal for patients with COPD. To date, no diary for evaluating respiratory symptoms in clinical trials has been developed and scientifically-validated according to FDA and EMA guidelines. The EXACT ¿ Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS) scale is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure designed to address this need. The E-RS utilizes 11 respiratory symptom items from the existing and validated 14-item EXACT, which measures symptoms of exacerbation. The E-RS total score quantifies respiratory symptom severity, and 3 domains assess breathlessness, cough and sputum, and chest symptoms.MethodsThis study examined the performance of the E-RS in each of 3 controlled trials with common and unique validation variables: one 6-month (N¿=¿235, US) and two 3-month (N¿=¿749; N¿=¿597; international). Subjects completed the E-RS as part of a daily eDiary. Tests of reliability, validity, and responsiveness were conducted in each dataset.ResultsIn each study, RS-Total score was internally consistent (Cronbach ¿) (0.88, 0.92, 0.92) and reproducible (intra-class correlation) in stable patients (2 days apart: 0.91; 7 days apart: 0.71, 0.74). RS-Total scores correlated significantly with the following criterion variables (Spearman¿s rho; p¿<¿0.01, all comparisons listed here): FEV1% predicted (¿0.19, ¿0.14, ¿0.15); St. George¿s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (0.65, 0.52, 0.51); Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale (BCSS) (0.89, 0.89); modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) (0.40); rescue medication use (0.43, 0.42); Functional Performance Inventory Short-Form (FPI-SF) (0.43); 6-minute walk distance (6-MWT) (¿0.30, ¿0.14) and incremental shuttle walk (ISWT) (¿0.18) tests. Correlations between these variables and RS-Breathlessness, RS-Cough and Sputum, RS-Chest Symptoms scores supported subscale validity. RS-Total, RS-Breathlessness, and RS-Chest Symptoms differentiated mMRC levels of breathlessness severity (p¿<¿0.0001). RS-Total and domain scores differentiated subjects with no rescue medication use and 3 or more puffs (p¿<¿0.0001). Sensitivity to changes in health status (SGRQ), symptoms (BCSS), and exercise capacity (6MWT, ISWT) were also shown and responder definitions using criterion- and distribution-based methods are proposed.ConclusionsResults suggest the E-RS is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of respiratory symptoms of COPD suitable for use in natural history studies and clinical trials.Trial registrationMPEX: NCT00739648; AZ1: NCT00949975; AZ 2: NCT01023516.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 121 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 41 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 46 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,572,366
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#567
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,911
of 267,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.