SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Clinical pathways for chronic cough in children.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Etiologies of Chronic Cough in Pediatric Cohorts: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.Chest · 2017Guideline
- A multi-disciplinary approach to chronic cough in children.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Review
- Process of diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in children at primary hospitals.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Observational
- The perceived and objectively measured effects of clinical pathways' implementation on medical care in China.PloS one · 2018Article
- Prolonged Cough in Pediatric Population First Line Care, Belgian Guidelines.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2017Article
- Survey on attitudes of Italian pediatricians toward cough.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
- General practitioners versus other physicians in the quality of primary care: a cross-sectional study in Guangdong Province, China.BMC family practice · 2015Observational
- Evaluation of 563 children with chronic cough accompanied by a new clinical algorithm.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2015Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic cough (a cough lasting longer than four weeks) is a common problem internationally. Chronic cough has associated economic costs and is distressing to the child and to parents; ignoring cough may lead to delayed diagnosis and progression of serious underlying respiratory disease. Clinical guidelines have been shown to lead to efficient and effective patient care and can facilitate clinical decision making. Cough guidelines have been designed to facilitate the management of chronic cough. However, treatment recommendations vary, and specific clinical pathways for the treatment of chronic cough in children are important, as causes of and treatments for cough vary significantly from those in adults. Therefore, systematic evaluation of the use of evidence-based clinical pathways for the management of chronic cough in children would be beneficial for clinical practice and for patient care. Use of a management algorithm can improve clinical outcomes; such management guidelines can be found in the guidelines for cough provided by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the British Thoracic Society (BTS).
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of using a clinical pathway in the management of children with chronic cough. SEARCH
methodsThe Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. The latest search was conducted in January 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of parallel-group design comparing use versus non-use of a clinical pathway for treatment of chronic cough in children (< 18 years of age). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results of searches were reviewed against predetermined criteria for inclusion. Two review authors independently selected studies and performed data extraction in duplicate. MAIN
resultsOne study was included in the review. This multi-centre trial was based in five Australian hospitals and recruited 272 children with chronic cough. Children were randomly assigned to early (two weeks) or delayed (six weeks) referral to respiratory specialists who used a cough management pathway. When an intention-to-treat analysis was performed, clinical failure at six weeks post randomisation (defined as < 75% improvement in cough score, or total resolution for fewer than three consecutive days) was significantly less in the early pathway arm compared with the control arm (odds ratio (OR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.58). These results indicate that one additional child will be cured for every five children treated via the cough pathway (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5, 95% CI 3 to 9) at six weeks. Cough-specific parent-reported quality of life scores were significantly better in the early-pathway group; the mean difference (MD) between groups was 0.60 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.01). Duration of cough post randomisation was significantly shorter in the intervention group (early-pathway arm) compared with the control group (delayed-pathway arm) (MD -2.70 weeks, 95% CI -4.26 to -1.14). AUTHORS'
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that using a clinical algorithm for the management of children with chronic cough in hospital outpatient settings is more effective than providing wait-list care. Futher high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to perform ongoing evaluation of cough management pathways in general practitioner and other primary care settings.
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.