Observational studyJMIR medical informatics2026
Real-Time Symptom Ratings Using Ecological Momentary Assessment Versus Traditional Questionnaires in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Observational Study.
Observational study in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Observational Feasibility and Acceptability Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Questionnaires assessing symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rely on retrospective reporting, introducing recall bias and missing symptom variability. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) addresses these limitations by capturing real-time symptom data. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare EMA symptom ratings with traditional questionnaires in patients with COPD. Methods: A subsample from the FAntasTIGUE study rated symptoms using questionnaires (visual analog scale, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, Physical Activity Rating Scale-Dyspnea Questionnaire, Checklist Individual Strength-subscale Subjective Fatigue, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and COPD Assessment Test) and EMA. Participants rated breathlessness, fatigue, anxiety, and energy level on a 7-point Likert scale during 8 random EMA prompts daily for 5 days. Results: Among 54 participants (mean age 67, SD 7 y; forced expiratory volume in 1 s 53%, SD 20% predicted; n=35, 65% men), the EMA response rate was 76.1%. EMA scores were moderately to strongly correlated with questionnaire scores (rs=0.49-0.78, all P<.05) and varied across severity groups (all P<.05). EMA captured significant intraday and interday symptom variability. Conclusions: EMA is a valid tool for COPD symptom assessment, capturing real-time fluctuations to improve symptom management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.