Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Patient characteristics for total group (n = 50) and videotaped participants (n = 27).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Construct validity of five dyspnoea scores by testing difference between subgroups in five predefined hypotheses.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Concurrent validity of five dyspnoea scores by correlating total scores with oxygen saturation, Fleming’s respiratory rate percentile and the dyspnoea severity score.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Agreement and responsiveness of the five dyspnoea scores using different anchors of change.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Inter and intrarater reliability and internal consistency of the five dyspnoea scores.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Floor and ceiling scores and percentages in five dyspnoea scores.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Summary of assessed quality criteria for the five dyspnoea scores bases on this study and earlier review by Bekhof et al.[9].

More »

Table 7 Expand