ArticleBiomedical engineering online2010
A portable automatic cough analyser in the ambulatory assessment of cough.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cough Frequency Monitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Pooled it
- Cough monitoring systems in adults with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Pooled it
- Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report.Chest · 2015Guideline
- Past and Trends in Cough Sound Acquisition, Automatic Detection and Automatic Classification: A Comparative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Noncontact Sensing of Contagion.Journal of imaging · 2021Review
- Concordance and discriminatory power of cough measurement devices for individuals with Parkinson disease.Chest · 2014Article
- Automated Cough Assessment on a Mobile Platform.Journal of medical engineering · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCough is one of the main symptoms of advanced lung disease. However, the efficacy of currently available treatment remains unsatisfactory. Research into the new antitussives requires an objective assessment of cough.
methodsThe aim of the study was to test the feasibility of a new automatic portable cough analyser and assess the correlation between subjective and objective evaluations of cough in 13 patients with chronic cough. The patients' individual histories, a cough symptom score and a numeric cough scale (1-10) were used as a subjective evaluation of cough and a computerized audio-timed recorder was used to measure the frequency of coughing.
resultsThe pre-clinical validation has shown that an automated cough analyser is an accurate and reliable tool for the ambulatory assessment of chronic cough. In the clinical part of the experiment for the daytime, subjective cough scoring correlated with the number of all cough incidents recorded by the cough analyser (r = 0.63; p = 0.022) and the number of cough incidents per hour (r = 0.60; p = 0.03). However, there was no relation between cough score and the time spent coughing per hour (r = 0.48; p = 0.1). As assessed for the night-time period, no correlation was found between subjective cough scoring and the number of incidents per hour (r = 0.29; p = 0.34) or time spent coughing (r = 0.26; p = 0.4).
conclusionAn automated cough analyser seems to be a feasible tool for the ambulatory monitoring of cough. There is a moderate correlation between subjective and objective assessments of cough during the daytime, whereas the discrepancy in the evaluation of night-time coughing might suggest that subjective analysis is unreliable.
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.