Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Pulmonary Medicine and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Differences in classification of COPD group using COPD assessment test (CAT) or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scores: a cross-sectional analyses

Sunmin Kim, Jisun Oh, Yu-Il Kim*, Hee-Jung Ban, Yong-Soo Kwon, In-Jae Oh, Kyu-Sik Kim, Young-Chul Kim and Sung-Chul Lim

BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2013, 13:35  doi:10.1186/1471-2466-13-35

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email info@biomedcentral.com, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Concordance of mMRC and CAT when used for COPD classification according to GOLD 2011

Norbert Banik   (2013-07-16 11:40)  Winicker Norimed Medical Research GmbH, Munich, Germany email

I read your article with big interest. It seems that we now have already a couple of indications that the two alternative classification systems suggeted by GOLD will need some revision - as you also concluded.
I wanted to make you aware of a similar work which appeared online in ERJ already in December 2012 (http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2012/12/19/09031936.00125612.abstract). Unfortunately it did not show up in print yet.
I want to mention that CAT is a validated score and item-wise use is not intended. The correlation analyses you presented with regard to single CAT items and mMRC is thus lacking a methodological sound basis.

Competing interests

No conflicting interests.

top

Post a comment