ArticleCough (London, England)2011
The objective assessment of cough frequency: accuracy of the LR102 device.
Article in Cough (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report.Chest · 2015Guideline
- Article
- Nighttime Continuous Contactless Smartphone-Based Cough Monitoring for the Ward: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Past and Trends in Cough Sound Acquisition, Automatic Detection and Automatic Classification: A Comparative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Assessment of cough in head and neck cancer patients at risk for dysphagia-An overview.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021Review
- Tool Evaluates Control Measures for Airborne Infectious Agents.ASHRAE journal · 2021Article
- The present and future of cough counting tools.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Theobromine for the treatment of persistent cough: a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
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
backgroundThe measurement of cough frequency is problematic and most often based on subjective assessment. The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of the automatic identification of cough episodes by LR102, a cough frequency meter based on electromyography and audio sensors.
methodsTen adult patients complaining of cough were recruited in primary care and hospital settings. Participants were asked to wear LR102 for 4 consecutive hours during which they were also filmed.
resultsMeasures of cough frequency by LR102 and manual counting were closely correlated (r = 0.87 for number of cough episodes per hour; r = 0.89 for number of single coughs per hour) but LR102 overestimated cough frequency. Bland-Altman plots indicate that differences between the two measurements were not influenced by cough frequency.
conclusionsLR102 offers a useful estimate of cough frequency in adults in their own environment, while significantly reducing the time required for analysis.
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.