Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27115759›Full record

ArticleDysphagia2016

Analysis of Clinicians' Perceptual Cough Evaluation.

Helena Laciuga, Alexandra E Brandimore, Michelle S Troche, Karen W Hegland

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dysphagia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists' Experience With Clinical Cough Assessment.Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

4 authors.

Helena LaciugaDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Florida, Box 117420, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA. hlaciuga@ufl.edu.
Alexandra E BrandimoreDepartment of Biobehavioral Sciences, Program in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Michelle S TrocheDepartment of Biobehavioral Sciences, Program in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Karen W HeglandDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Florida, Box 117420, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined the relationships between subjective descriptors and objective airflow measures of cough. We hypothesized that coughs with specific airflow characteristics would share common subjective perceptual descriptions. Thirty clinicians (speech-language pathologists, otolaryngologists, and neurologists) perceptually evaluated ten cough audio samples with specific airflow characteristics determined by peak expiratory flow rate, cough expired volume, cough duration, and number of coughs in the cough epoch. Participants rated coughs by strength, duration, quality, quantity, and overall potential effectiveness for airway protection. Perception of cough strength and effectiveness was determined by the combination of presence of pre-expulsive compression phase, short peak expiratory airflow rate rise time, high peak expiratory flow rates, and high cough volume acceleration. Perception of cough abnormality was defined predominantly by descriptors of breathiness and strain. Breathiness was characteristic for coughs with either absent compression phases and relatively high expiratory airflow rates or coughs with significantly low expired volumes and reduced peak flow rates. In contrast, excessive strain was associated with prolonged compression phases and low expiratory airflow rates or the absence of compression phase with high peak expiratory rates. The study participants reached greatest agreement in distinguishing between single and multiple coughs. Their assessment of cough strength and effectiveness was less consistent. Finally, the least agreement was shown in determining the quality categories. Modifications of cough airflow can influence perceptual cough evaluation outcomes. However, the inconsistency of cough ratings among our participants suggests that a uniform cough rating system is required.

Indexed as

AdultChildClinical CompetenceCoughFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPerceptionPulmonary VentilationReproducibility of ResultsRespirationRespiratory SoundsSymptom AssessmentAirway protectionClinical/bedside assessmentCough airflowCough perceptionDysphagiaVoluntary cough

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.