Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objective: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease that causes 6% of deaths, 90% of which occur in low-and middleincome countries.Improving these patients' quality of life (QOL) is one of the primary treatment goals.The St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) is used to measure the health status of patients with respiratory problems.This research aimed to assess the health status of patients with COPD after validating the Persian version of this questionnaire. Materials & Methods:The study was performed from Feb to Oct 2016 in Shiraz, Iran.First, the Persian version of the questionnaire was validated using a backtranslation technique by two translators, supervised by two researchers, and finally approved by two pulmonologists.The test-retest method was used to investigate the questionnaire's reliability.The questionnaire was used to assess the health status of 158 COPD patients with FEV1/FVC ratio≤ 0.7 or FEV1<80%, without exacerbation, cardiac disease, or recent hospitalization.Results: The reliabilities of the first part (questions 1-7) and second part (questions 8-14) of the questionnaire was 0.64 and 0.90, respectively.The current health was good, fair, poor, and very poor in 7.6%, 22.2%, 44.9%, 22.8%, and 2.5% of the patients, respectively.The mean± standard deviation (SD) scores calculated for symptoms, activity, and impact were 54.216±23.725,41.477±24.996,and 37.482±26.390,and the total score was 133.176±69.284. Conclusion:The Persian version of the SGRQ-C was valid and reliable.The patients with COPD at our center had a good health status.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".