ArticlePloS one2024
Patient satisfaction with the management of refractory and unexplained chronic cough in Canada: Results from a national survey.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Unmet need for biomarkers in chronic cough: a review of current challenges and future directions.ERJ open research · 2025Review
- Top 10 priorities for chronic cough: Canadian James Lind Alliance Priority-Setting Partnership (CAN-COUGH).ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Cross-sectional evaluation of patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough by office-based pulmonologists in Germany.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic cough (persisting for ≥8 weeks) is a common disorder affecting approximately 5 to 10% of adults worldwide that is sometimes refractory to treatment (refractory chronic cough [RCC]) or has no identifiable cause (unexplained chronic cough [UCC]). There is minimal information on the patient's experience of RCC/UCC in Canada. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient journey and perceptions related to RCC/UCC management in Canada.
methodsOur exploratory study included Canadians in the Leger Opinion Panel and focused on individuals with RCC or UCC. Key entry criteria were: age ≥18 years, cough on most days for ≥8 weeks, no smoking within 1 year, no serious respiratory disease or lung cancer, and not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Individuals who met entry criteria were invited to complete an approximately 30-minute online survey with questions on demographic characteristics, healthcare professional (HCP) interactions, diagnosis of underlying conditions, current treatments, and satisfaction with HCPs and chronic cough therapies.
resultsA total of 49,076 individuals completed the chronic cough screening questionnaire (July 30, 2021 to September 1, 2021): 1,620 (3.3%) met entry criteria for RCC or UCC, and 1,046 (2.1%) completed the online survey (mean age of 45 years, 61% female). Most respondents (58%) reported their chronic cough was managed by a general practitioner (GP). Forty-four percent of respondents did not have a diagnosis of an underlying condition for their cough. Breathing tests (39%) and chest imaging (34%) were the most common diagnostic tests. Cough suppressants (18%) were the most frequent current treatment. Respondents were moderately satisfied with their HCPs, but more than half considered their treatment ineffective and 34% had considered no longer seeking medical attention because of a lack of treatment success.
conclusionsIndividuals with RCC/UCC in Canada are largely unsatisfied with the effectiveness of treatment. Additional HCP education and new treatment options are needed to improve patient satisfaction.
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.