ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020
Perspectives on chronic cough in Korea.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objective Assessment of the Cough: Listening to the Patient's Voice. A Narrative Review.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2026Article
- Real-World patterns of Korean medicine and combined Korean-Western medicine use in patients with chronic cough at Korean medicine institutions: a nationwide cohort study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Gender Differences in Antitussive Prescriptions for Chronic Cough in Korea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A smartphone-based application for cough counting in patients with acute asthma exacerbation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Differences between Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and IgE-sensitization to Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin on risk factors and effects in adult population.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic cough is a common condition, and generally affects about 3% of Korean adults with a significant influence on quality of life (QoL). Despite continued clinical and academic efforts, there are unmet needs for chronic cough prevention and management in Korea. Epidemiologically, there are two major challenges: an aging population and air pollution. Korea is one of the most rapidly aging countries, and the relative proportion of elderly to younger people is expected to double within the next two decades. Air pollution is a major concern, but there is very limited evidence on the effects of air pollutant on cough in Korean patients. Clinically, upper and lower airway diseases, such as rhinitis/rhinosinusitis and cough variant asthma/eosinophilic bronchitis, are reported to account for about 75% of chronic cough in Korean adults, which formed the basis in formulating clinical practice guidelines. However, further studies are warranted to resolve clinical uncertainty, particularly for the evaluation and treatment of upper airway conditions in chronic cough. The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is increasing, thus its relevance to cough among Koreans may warrant re-evaluation. Infection-associated chronic cough, such as tuberculosis, is another continuing concern. The proportion of chronic refractory or unexplained cough is assumed to be 10-20% among patients visiting referral clinics for chronic cough. This review presents our perspectives on current epidemiological and clinical issues of chronic cough in Korea, and addresses major knowledge gaps and future research priorities.
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.