ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2014
Chronic cough - assessment of treatment efficacy based on two questionnaires.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2014. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Observational
- Real-world survey on utilization of central antitussives and its health impact in patients with subacute and chronic cough in Japan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cough syncope due to laryngeal herpes zoster successfully managed by pregabalin.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2023Article
- Blood eosinophils as a predictor of treatment response in adults with difficult-to-treat chronic cough.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Managing patients with chronic cough: challenges and solutions.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2018Article
- CTGF upregulation correlates with MMP-9 level in airway remodeling in a murine model of asthma.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2017Article
- Children with severe asthma can start allergen immunotherapy after controlling asthma with omalizumab: a case series from Poland.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEfficacy of chronic cough treatment is ambiguous. The aim of the study was to analyze chronic cough alleviation after specific treatment and the relationship between cough etiology and treatment efficacy. MATERIAL AND
methodsA stepwise diagnostic approach was used to diagnose cough etiology in non-smoking adults with chronic cough. In all patients specific treatment was applied. Two different questionnaires - a visual analog scale and a 5-degree scale - were used to assess cough severity before and after 4-6 months of treatment.
resultsA significant correlation between pre-treatment and post-treatment results of both questionnaires was found (Spearman coefficient 0.43, p = 0.0003 and 0.73, p < 0.0001, respectively). Baseline questionnaire analysis revealed no differences in cough severity between patients with different cough causes or multiple cough causes. Although specific treatment resulted in a significant decrease of cough severity in the entire group, only partial improvement was noted. According to the visual analogue scale, a decrease of cough severity by at least 50% was achieved only in 54.4% of patients (37/68). Similarly, satisfactory improvement was noted in only 54.4% (37/68) of patients when using the 5-point scale. There were three sub-groups of patients, in whom no relevant decrease of cough severity was observed despite treatment: patients with 1. three coexisting cough causes, 2. non-asthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis, and 3. chronic idiopathic cough.
conclusionsCough severity does not depend on its etiology. Efficacy of chronic cough treatment in non-smoking patients is only moderate.
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.