Validation of a Novel Clinical Dyspnea Scale - A Retrospective Pilot Study.
Meena Kalluri, Ying Cui, Ting Wang and 1 others
PMID 36977656WHAT IT FOUND
In 100 IPF patients, a questionnaire asked them to rate breathlessness during daily tasks and stairs from 0 to 10.
Stairs were worst, median 6. Scores rose with disability, but no treatment was tested.
Key findings
01In 100 IPF patients, EDI item scores generally rose as MRC disability grade increased, and stairs received the highest median rating, 6.
02The EDI items behaved as one overall breathlessness score, with very high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha .92).
03Patients grouped by EDI score trajectory had different one-year mortality: 0 of 16 in Group 1, 8 of 46 in Group 2, and 20 of 38 in Group 3.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was single centre, retrospective and used medical records from one IPF clinic. Only 100 patients were analysed, and 9 of 109 records lacked baseline EDI scores. The walking item was added after data collection and was not analysed because only 17 patients had walking scores. The study validates associations between EDI scores and other measures. It does not test whether using the EDI improves dyspnea management or survival. The paper states that prospective controlled study, test-retest reliability and minimal important change thresholds are still needed.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest and received no financial support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the EDI improves care or survival. The mortality differences were observed in a retrospective validation study, not tested as an effect of using the scale, and predictive model improvements were not confirmed prospectively.