Trial reportCanadian respiratory journal
Assessment and management of patients with chronic cough by Certified Respiratory Educators: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Canadian respiratory journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating asthma care guidelines into primary care electronic medical records: a review focused on Canadian knowledge translation tools.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- The Calgary COPD & Asthma Program: The role of the respiratory therapy profession in primary care.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2018Article
- Asthma control: the right inhaler for the right patient.Advances in therapy · 2015Review
- Academic Alternate Relationship Plans for internal medicine: a lever for health care transformation.Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal · 2011Article
- Review
- Efficient management of cough.Canadian respiratory journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of other health care professionals is increasingly being recognized to compensate for the shortage of physicians in Canada. Chronic cough is one of the most common reasons for consultation with a respirologist. In the present study, a prospective, randomized, controlled study was undertaken to determine whether Certified Respiratory Educators (CREs) could manage screened patients with chronic cough as effectively as respirologists.
methodsAn eight-week, prospective, parallel-design, randomized, controlled trial of the management of chronic cough patients was conducted. Patients were screened to exclude those with potentially life-threatening conditions. The primary outcome was the number of patients whose cough resolved or subjectively improved.
resultsA total of 198 patients were randomly assigned, and eight-week data were available on 151 patients. Mean age of the patients was 49.8+/-13.4 years, 70.2% were female and median cough duration was 16 months. The screening process was effective and referral wait times decreased from a median of two months to less than four weeks (P<0.0001). The educators averaged 4.9 contacts per patient compared with 2.7 by the physicians over the eight-week study period (P<0.0001). Most patients had had multiple therapeutic trials before referral. Cough resolved or improved in two-thirds of the patients at eight weeks; however, more patients showed improvement in the educator arm than in the physician arm, P<0.02. Cough-specific quality of life improved similarly in the two study arms at eight weeks (physician arm: 61.5+/-14.1 to 52.6+/-14.4, P<0.0001; CRE arm: 58.1+/-14.9 to 50.0+/-15.8, P=0.0003).
conclusionsCREs can safely and effectively assess, as well as appropriately treat, screened patients with chronic cough with a resultant reduction in wait times.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.