Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25522203›Full record

GuidelineChest2015

Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report.

Louis-Philippe Boulet, Remy R Coeytaux, Douglas C McCrory, Cynthia T French, Anne B Chang, Surinder S Birring, Jaclyn Smith, Rebecca L Diekemper, Bruce Rubin, Richard S Irwin and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Chest, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05042063 (Acoustic Cough Monitoring for the Management of Patients With Known Respiratory Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 64 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT05042063 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Acoustic Cough Monitoring for the Management of Patients With Known Respiratory Disease

TypeobservationalSponsorClinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de NavarraRan2021 to 2022Enrolled616ConditionsCough, COPD, GERD, AsthmaArmsHyfe Cough Tracker, Hyfe Air
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient-reported outcome measures for cough used in interstitial lung disease: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cough monitoring systems in adults with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Speech and language therapy for management of chronic cough.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Codeine versus placebo for chronic cough in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Louis-Philippe BouletInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Quebec City, QC, Canada. Electronic address: lpboulet@med.ulaval.ca.
Remy R CoeytauxDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Douglas C McCroryDuke Evidence-based Practice Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Cynthia T FrenchPulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA.
Anne B ChangDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Surinder S BirringDivision of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, King's College London, London, England.
Jaclyn SmithUniversity Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, England.
Rebecca L DiekemperAmerican College of Chest Physicians, Glenview, IL.
Bruce RubinVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Richard S IrwinDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA.
CHEST Expert Cough Panel
Duke University · USInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec · CARoyal Children's Hospital · AUAmerican College of Chest Physicians · USKing's College London · GBUMass Memorial Medical Center · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Central Mechanisms of Airway ProtectionR01HL103415 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BOLSER, DONALD C, DAVENPORT, PAUL W · 2010 to 2013
$2.2M
Medical Research Council G0701918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.

methodsBy following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.

resultsWe recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.

conclusionsValidated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntitussive AgentsBiomedical ResearchChildChild, PreschoolChronic DiseaseCoughHumansInfantMiddle AgedAntitussive Agents

Identifiers

PMID25522203
PMCPMC5991766
OpenAlexW2077290403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.