Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20504377›Full record

ArticleCough (London, England)2010

Validation of an ambulatory cough detection and counting application using voluntary cough under different conditions.

Eldad Vizel, Mordechai Yigla, Yulia Goryachev, Eyal Dekel, Vered Felis, Hanna Levi, Isaac Kroin, Simon Godfrey, Noam Gavriely

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cough (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validation of a small cough detector.ERJ open research · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Methods for assessing cough sensitivity.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
    Review
  12. The present and future of cough counting tools.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Dynamics of Cough Frequency in Adults Undergoing Treatment for Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Targeting TRP channels for chronic cough: from bench to bedside.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2015
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eldad VizelKarmelSonix Ltd,, Haifa, Israel. noam@karmelsonix.com.
Mordechai Yigla
Yulia Goryachev
Eyal Dekel
Vered Felis
Hanna Levi
Isaac Kroin
Simon Godfrey
Noam Gavriely
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile cough is an important defence mechanism of the respiratory system, its chronic presence is bothersome and may indicate the presence of a serious disease. We hereby describe the validation process of a novel cough detection and counting technology (PulmoTrack-CC, KarmelSonix, Haifa, Israel).

methodsTracheal and chest wall sounds, ambient sounds and chest motion were digitally recorded, using the PulmoTrack(R) hardware, from healthy volunteers coughing voluntarily while (a) laying supine, (b) sitting, (c) sitting with strong ambient noise, (d) walking, and (e) climbing stairs, a total of 25 minutes per subject. The cough monitoring algorithm was applied to the recorded data to detect and count coughs.The detection algorithm first searches for cough 'candidates' by identifying loud sounds with a cough pattern, followed by a secondary verification process based on detection of specific characteristics of cough. The recorded data were independently and blindly evaluated by trained experts who listened to the sounds and visually reviewed them on a sonogram display.The validation process was based on two methods: (i) Referring to an expert consensus as gold standard, and comparing each cough detected by the algorithm to the expert marking, we marked True and False, positive and negative detections.These values were used to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of the cough monitoring system. (ii) Counting the number of coughs in longer segments (t = 60 sec, n = 300) and plotting the cough count vs. the corresponding experts' count whereby the linear regression equation, the regression coefficient (R2) and the joint-distribution density Bland-Altman plots could be determined.

resultsData were recorded from 12 volunteers undergoing the complete protocol. The overall Specificity for cough events was 94% and the Sensitivity was 96%, with similar values found for all conditions, except for the stair climbing stage where the Specificity was 87% with Sensitivity of 97%. The regression equation between the PulmoTrack-CC cough event counts and the Experts' determination was with R2 of 0.94. DISCUSSION: This validation scheme provides an objective and quantitative assessment method of a cough counting algorithm in a range of realistic situations that simulate ambulatory monitoring of cough. The ability to detect voluntary coughs under acoustically challenging ambient conditions may represent a useful step towards a clinically applicable automatic cough detector.

Identifiers

PMID20504377
PMCPMC2890532
OpenAlexW2128492604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.