Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31178996›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2019

'Dry' and 'wet' cough: how reliable is parental reporting?

Deirdre Donnelly, Mark L Everard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Deirdre DonnellyRespiratory Medicine, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Mark L EverardSchool of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1571-261X
Respiratory Clinical Trials · AUThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic cough in childhood is common and causes much parental anxiety. Eliciting a diagnosis can be difficult as it is a non-specific symptom indicating airways inflammation and this may be due to a variety of aetiologies. A key part of assessment is obtaining an accurate cough history. It has previously been shown that parental reporting of 'wheeze' is frequently inaccurate. This study aimed to determine whether parental reporting of the quality of a child's cough is likely to be accurate. Methods: Parents of 48 'new' patients presenting to a respiratory clinic with chronic cough were asked to describe the nature of their child's cough. They were then shown video clips of different types of cough using age-appropriate examples, and their initial report was compared with the types of cough chosen from the video. Results: In a quarter of cases, the parents chose a video clip of a 'dry' or 'wet' cough having given the opposite description. In a further 20% parents chose examples of both 'dry' and 'wet' coughs despite having used only one descriptor. Discussion: While the characteristics of a child's cough carry important information that may be helpful in reaching a diagnosis, clinicians should interpret parental reporting of the nature of a child's cough with some caution in that one person's 'dry' cough may very well be another person's 'wet' cough.

Indexed as

ParentsSelf ReportAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCoughFeasibility StudiesHumansMedical History TakingReproducibility of Resultschildrencoughdryvideowet

Identifiers

PMID31178996
PMCPMC6530544
OpenAlexW2944946763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.