ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2014
Recent additions in the treatment of cough.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech and language therapy for management of chronic cough.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy of behavioral cough suppression therapy for refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Tosse Crônica e Fonoaudiologia.CoDAS · 2021Article
- Danish respiratory society position paper: palliative care in patients with chronic progressive non-malignant lung diseases.European clinical respiratory journal · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, cough is regarded as a challenging clinical problem due to its frequency and often limited therapeutic options. Chronic cough that remains refractory to usual medical treatment causes significant quality of life impairment in people with this problem.
methodsWe have examined current evidence on recent additions in the treatment of cough, specifically treatment of refractory chronic cough with speech pathology and gabapentin. Relevant randomised control trials, reviews and case reports were identified through a PubMed and SCOPUS search of English-language literature referring to these concepts over the last eight years. SUMMARY: Of the one hundred and two articles comprising this review the majority investigated the role of the transient receptor potential (TRP) receptors TRP Vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) and TRPA1 in cough and the potential of TRP antagonists as effective anti-tussives. However, these have only been tested in the laboratory and therefore their clinical effectiveness is unknown. Behavioural treatments such as speech pathology have gained momentum and this was evident in the increasing number of articles investigating its positive effect on cough. Investigation on the effectiveness of neuromodulating medications in the treatment of cough have been supported primarily through case series reports and prospective reviews however; their use (particularly gabapentin) has been significantly advanced through recently conducted randomised controlled trials.
conclusionsRecent additions in the treatment of chronic cough have been significant as they consider cough to have a unifying diagnosis of cough hypersensitivity with or without the presence of a neuropathic basis. Primarily, effective treatments for chronic cough target these areas and include behavioural treatment such as speech pathology and pharmaceutical treatment with neuromodulating medications such as gabapentin.
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.