ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Barthel Index-dyspnea in patients with pulmonary hypertension.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The Barthel Index-dyspnea (BI-d) is a respiratory disease-specific tool developed on the basis of the Barthel Index (BI), which provides a simple and quick way to measure the degree of dyspnea in activities of daily living (ADL). Dyspnea is one of the most common symptoms of pulmonary hypertension (PH). The objective of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the BI-d in patients with PH. Materials and methods: A total of 73 PH patients were included in the study. Criterion validity was explored using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, 6-min walk test (6MWT), and London Chest Activities of Daily Living (LCADL) scale, while divergent validity was examined through correlations between the BI-d and BI. Results: The BI-d demonstrated strong correlations with the LCADL (r = 0.801) and mMRC (r = 0.775), and a moderately negative correlation with the 6MWD (r = -0.510), supporting criterion-related validity. A weak negative correlation with the BI (r = -0.289) supported divergent validity. The BI-d scores differed significantly across the mMRC grades and PH functional classes, confirming known-group validity. Reliability analyses showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.94). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the BI-d demonstrates high reliability and validity in PH. As a tool that integrates respiratory burden with activity-related functional performance, it provides a practical assessment of dyspnea-related impairment during ADL.
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.