ArticleEuropean clinical respiratory journal2023
Introduction of a systematic examination framework for chronic cough: a before-after cohort study in a clinical setting.
Article in European clinical respiratory journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cough is a condition that can be caused by several different mechanisms. There are numerous guidelines for diagnosing the cause of cough, yet the effect of a well-constructed examination framework has not been investigated. At the Department of Internal Medicine, Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, a systematic examination framework for diagnosing cough was introduced. Two hundred consecutive patients referred to the pulmonary outpatient clinic with cough were included. The first 100 patients (Group 1) were included before implementation of the examination framework and diagnosed as usual. The next 100 patients (Group 2) were examined using the systematic framework. The primary endpoint was the number of appointments required to establish a diagnosis. A multivariable Poisson regression was performed, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, pulmonary function (FEV1/FVC), duration of cough, and smoking status. A diagnosis was established within 1-2 visits in 47% in Group 1 compared to 83% in Group 2. When adjusting for confounders, fewer appointments was required to establish a diagnosis in Group 2 (Incidence rate ratio = 0.713 (95% confidence interval: 0.592-0.859),
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.