ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

COPD: (Redelmeier et al, 1996; n = 112 patients with COPD who were participating in a supervised respiratory rehabilitation and in stable health; mean age = 67 (10) years)

• MCID = a change of 0.5 per item

COPD: (Rutten-van Molken et al, 1999; n = 144 patients with COPD, broken into three treatment groups; n = 47 taking Salmeterol and Ipatropium Bromide, 47 taking Salmeterol and placebo, and 50 taking placebo and placebo; mean age by treatment group = 63(7.1), 65.4(5.8) and 63.2(7.4) years)

Baseline characteristics of the study population

COPD: (Wijkstra et al, 1994; n = 43 patient with severe airflow obstruction; mean age = 64(5) years for the rehab group and 62(5) for the control group)

• Excellent test re-test reliability (rho = 0.90)

COPD: (Williams, 2001; n = 52 patients with COPD; mean age = 66.5(7.9) years)

• Excellent test re-test reliability for all four dimensions (ICC = 0.83-0.95)

COPD: (Wijkstra et al, 1994)

• Adequate to excellent internal consistency for all four dimensions (Cronbach's alpha = 0.71-0.88)

COPD:(Harper et al, 1997; n = 76 men and 80 women with COPD attending routine outpatient clinic; mean age = 67(10.4) years for men and 62(10.3) years for women)

• Excellent internal consistency for all four dimensions (Cronbach's alpha = 0.8-0.85) 

COPD: (Rutten-van Molken et al, 1999)

• Excellent internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha = 0.84)

COPD: (Hajiro et al, 1998; n = 143 men with COPD; mean age = 68.8(6.9) years)

• Excellent internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha = 0.90)

COPD: (Hajiro et al, 1998)

COPD:(Wijkstra et al, 1994)

• Poor correlations between CRQ and lung function (PFTs)
• Poor correlations between CRQ and exercise capacity (6MW, CPET)

Chronic airflow limitation: (Guyatt et al, 1987; n = 100 patients with chronic airflow limitation) 

• Responsiveness was tested by administering the questionnaire to 13 patients before and after their drug treatment and to another 28 before and after participation in a respiratory rehabilitation program

• There were statistically significant improvements in all four dimensions

Quality of life:(Jaeschke et al, 1989; a literature review of quality of life instruments)

• A change in the score of 0.5 on the 7 point scale reflects a clinically significant small change

• A change of 1.0 reflects a moderate change

• A difference of 1.5 represents a large change

Quality of life:(Jaeschke, 1989)

• MCID = a change of 0.5 per item