ArticlePloS one2024
Characteristics, demographics, and epidemiology of possible chronic cough in Sweden: A nationwide register-based cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Oral Camlipixant: A Randomized First-In-Human Study Using Single and Multiple Ascending Doses.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Challenges and Burdens in Refractory Chronic Cough: Patients' and Physicians' Perspectives.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Review
- Female predominance in chronic cough: biological sex-related factors, mechanisms, and therapeutic targets-a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Unraveling the neuro-immune axis in cough hypersensitivity: from pathogenesis to synergistic management.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Cross-sectional evaluation of patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough by office-based pulmonologists in Germany.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo show clinical characteristics, treatments, and comorbidities in chronic cough in a nationwide cohort.
methodsTwo cohorts were created. A national cohort with individuals from two population-based databases; the National Patient Register and Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Secondly, a regional cohort including primary care data. Adults with at least one cough diagnosis (ICD-10 R05) and/or individuals with ≥2 dispensed prescriptions for relevant cough-medication within the inclusion period, 2016-2018, were identified. Individuals on medications which may instigate cough or suggest acute infection or diagnosed with conditions where cough is a cardinal symptom, were excluded. Those remaining were defined as having possible refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC/UCC).
resultsAltogether 62,963 individuals were identified with possible RCC/UCC, giving a national prevalence of about 1%. Mean age was 56 years and 60% were females. Many (44%) of the individuals with possible RCC/UCC visited cough relevant specialist clinics during the study period, but less than 20% received a cough diagnosis. A majority (63%) had evidence of RCC/UCC in the 10 years prior to inclusion in the study. In the regional cohort, including primary care data, the prevalence of RCC/UCC was doubled (2%). Cough medicines were mainly prescribed by primary care physicians (82%).
conclusionMost individuals with possible RCC/UCC sought medical care in primary care, and had a long history of cough, with various treatments tried, indicating a substantial burden of the condition. Referrals to specialist care were very rare. The results underline the need for a structured multidisciplinary approach and future therapeutic options.
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.