BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ), a widely used measure of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with chronic airflow limitation, includes an individualized dyspnea domain (patients identify five important activities, and report the degree of dyspnea on a 7-point scale). Because the individualized domain is unwieldy in multicenter clinical trials, we developed a standardized version and tested its discriminative and evaluative properties. METHODS: We enrolled 51 patients who completed the standardized and individualized CRQ before starting a respiratory rehabilitation program, and again 3 months later. We calculated both cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations between the two versions and a number of other HRQL instruments, and tested the relative ability of the individualized and standardized versions of the CRQ to detect improvement with rehabilitation. RESULTS: The results of the individualized questions suggested greater dysfunction (lower scores) than did the standardized questions both at baseline (3.18 vs 3.92, p < 0.001) and follow-up (4.62 vs 4.84, p = 0.051). The standardized dyspnea domain showed superior discriminative validity. While both techniques detected important, statistically significant improvement with rehabilitation (individualized domain mean change, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.77 [p < 0.001]; standardized domain mean change, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.24 [p < 0.01]), the difference in effect was substantial and statistically significant (mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.82; p = 0.001). The two versions showed comparable longitudinal validity. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized version of the CRQ dyspnea domain improves the cross-sectional validity, maintains longitudinal validity, but reduces the responsiveness. By increasing sample size, investigators can use the more efficient standardized version of the CRQ without compromising validity.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ), a widely used measure of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with chronic airflow limitation, includes an individualized dyspnea domain (patients identify five important activities, and report the degree of dyspnea on a 7-point scale). Because the individualized domain is unwieldy in multicenter clinical trials, we developed a standardized version and tested its discriminative and evaluative properties. METHODS: We enrolled 51 patients who completed the standardized and individualized CRQ before starting a respiratory rehabilitation program, and again 3 months later. We calculated both cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations between the two versions and a number of other HRQL instruments, and tested the relative ability of the individualized and standardized versions of the CRQ to detect improvement with rehabilitation. RESULTS: The results of the individualized questions suggested greater dysfunction (lower scores) than did the standardized questions both at baseline (3.18 vs 3.92, p < 0.001) and follow-up (4.62 vs 4.84, p = 0.051). The standardized dyspnea domain showed superior discriminative validity. While both techniques detected important, statistically significant improvement with rehabilitation (individualized domain mean change, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.77 [p < 0.001]; standardized domain mean change, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.24 [p < 0.01]), the difference in effect was substantial and statistically significant (mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.82; p = 0.001). The two versions showed comparable longitudinal validity. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized version of the CRQ dyspnea domain improves the cross-sectional validity, maintains longitudinal validity, but reduces the responsiveness. By increasing sample size, investigators can use the more efficient standardized version of the CRQ without compromising validity.
Authors: M Decramer; R Gosselink; M Rutten-Van Mölken; J Buffels; O Van Schayck; P-A Gevenois; R Pellegrino; E Derom; W De Backer Journal: Thorax Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: David B Coultas; Bradford E Jackson; Rennie Russo; Jennifer Peoples; John Sloan; Karan P Singh; Jamile Ashmore; Steven N Blair; Minyong Uhm; Sejong Bae Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-05
Authors: Rennie Russo; David Coultas; Jamile Ashmore; Jennifer Peoples; John Sloan; Bradford E Jackson; Minyong Uhm; Karan P Singh; Steven N Blair; Sejong Bae Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Maria Jose Santana; Julia S-Parrilla; Judith Mirus; Martha Loadman; Dale C Lien; David Feeny Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Jamile Ashmore; Rennie Russo; Jennifer Peoples; John Sloan; Bradford E Jackson; Sejong Bae; Karan P Singh; Steven N Blair; David Coultas Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Nick A Francis; David Gillespie; Patrick White; Janine Bates; Rachel Lowe; Bernadette Sewell; Rhiannon Phillips; Helen Stanton; Nigel Kirby; Mandy Wootton; Emma Thomas-Jones; Kerenza Hood; Carl Llor; Jochen Cals; Hasse Melbye; Gurudutt Naik; Micaela Gal; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Mohammed Fasihul Alam; Evgenia Riga; Ann Cochrane; Christopher C Butler Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.014