Measuring symptom response to pharmacological interventions in patients with COPD: a review of instruments used in clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate the instruments used to measure the effect of pharmacological intervention on symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in clinical trials. DESIGN: An extensive literature search was conducted for articles published in English in a peer-reviewed journal from 1995 to March 2002 which described a randomised controlled clinical trial measuring symptoms of COPD in response to pharmacological interventions. PATIENTS: Patients with any severity of COPD. INTERVENTIONS: Any pharmacological intervention for treatment of COPD. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A total of 43 eligible articles were identified. The individual symptoms most frequently measured were dyspnoea/breathlessness, chest tightness or discomfort and exacerbations. There was considerable variability in the methods, terminology and symptom measurement instruments used. The most widely used instruments for measuring dyspnoea were the Borg scale, the Baseline Dyspnoea Index and the Transitional Dyspnoea Index. None of the instruments used had published evidence of rigorous psychometric testing. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous methods have been employed to assess the symptoms of COPD in clinical trials, making it difficult to compare the results of different trials. No single measurement instrument predominates, and none of the measures identified in the review have undergone rigorous psychometric testing in this patient population. There is a clear need for a fully developed and validated tool for measuring the effects of therapeutic interventions on symptoms in COPD in clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".