Relationship Between Dyspnoea Scales and Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors: A Retrospective Analysis.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Abdurrahim Yildiz, Rustem Mustafaoglu, Ayse Nur Bardak
{"title":"Relationship Between Dyspnoea Scales and Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors: A Retrospective Analysis.","authors":"Abdurrahim Yildiz, Rustem Mustafaoglu, Ayse Nur Bardak","doi":"10.3390/medicina61030540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationship between different dyspnoea scales and clinical and physical parameters of stroke patients and to identify the most appropriate scale for stroke patients. <i>Materials and Methods:</i> This study, designed as a retrospective analysis, involved 203 patients diagnosed with stroke. Dyspnoea intensity was evaluated using four different scales: Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD), Basic Dyspnoea Index (BDI), Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Respiratory muscle strength (maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (SIS)) were also assessed. <i>Results:</i> The regression model explained only 20.2% of the variance in SIS total scores (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.202), indicating that key predictors might be missing. Additionally, dyspnoea scales showed statistically significant but modest correlations with SIS total scores (r = 0.248-0.397), suggesting limited clinical significance. There was a statistically significant relationship between age and dyspnoea scales, except for OCD (r = -0.153, <i>p</i> = 0.056). A statistically significant relationship was found between the MIP and OCD scales (r = 0.290, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and BDI scale (r = 0.195, <i>p</i> = 0.014). However, only the BDI showed a statistically significant relationship with the other three dyspnoea scales in stroke patients. <i>Conclusions:</i> The OCD and BDI can evaluate dyspnoea ratings during day-to-day activities; therefore, these scales were significantly correlated with inspiratory muscle strength in stroke patients. Our findings suggest that while BDI and OCD are valuable tools for dyspnoea assessment in stroke patients, the overall predictive power of dyspnoea scales for quality of life is limited. Future studies should consider additional variables, such as comorbidities and rehabilitation intensity, to improve predictive accuracy and clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":49830,"journal":{"name":"Medicina-Lithuania","volume":"61 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11943753/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina-Lithuania","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030540","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationship between different dyspnoea scales and clinical and physical parameters of stroke patients and to identify the most appropriate scale for stroke patients. Materials and Methods: This study, designed as a retrospective analysis, involved 203 patients diagnosed with stroke. Dyspnoea intensity was evaluated using four different scales: Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD), Basic Dyspnoea Index (BDI), Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Respiratory muscle strength (maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (SIS)) were also assessed. Results: The regression model explained only 20.2% of the variance in SIS total scores (R2 = 0.202), indicating that key predictors might be missing. Additionally, dyspnoea scales showed statistically significant but modest correlations with SIS total scores (r = 0.248-0.397), suggesting limited clinical significance. There was a statistically significant relationship between age and dyspnoea scales, except for OCD (r = -0.153, p = 0.056). A statistically significant relationship was found between the MIP and OCD scales (r = 0.290, p < 0.001) and BDI scale (r = 0.195, p = 0.014). However, only the BDI showed a statistically significant relationship with the other three dyspnoea scales in stroke patients. Conclusions: The OCD and BDI can evaluate dyspnoea ratings during day-to-day activities; therefore, these scales were significantly correlated with inspiratory muscle strength in stroke patients. Our findings suggest that while BDI and OCD are valuable tools for dyspnoea assessment in stroke patients, the overall predictive power of dyspnoea scales for quality of life is limited. Future studies should consider additional variables, such as comorbidities and rehabilitation intensity, to improve predictive accuracy and clinical relevance.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medicina-Lithuania
Medicina-Lithuania 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1578
审稿时长
25.04 days
期刊介绍: The journal’s main focus is on reviews as well as clinical and experimental investigations. The journal aims to advance knowledge related to problems in medicine in developing countries as well as developed economies, to disseminate research on global health, and to promote and foster prevention and treatment of diseases worldwide. MEDICINA publications cater to clinicians, diagnosticians and researchers, and serve as a forum to discuss the current status of health-related matters and their impact on a global and local scale.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信