ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2024
Development and validation of a novel questionnaire to describe and assess sensations and triggers associated with refractory and unexplained chronic cough.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported outcome measures for cough used in interstitial lung disease: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Pooled it
- Low-dose morphine and airway sensations in refractory chronic cough: a randomised control trial.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Observational
- Treatable traits in chronic cough: a prospective evaluation for predicting cough persistence.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a novel questionnaire to describe and assess sensations and triggers associated with refractory and unexplained chronic cough.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRefractory or unexplained chronic cough (RUCC) is a common clinical problem with no effective diagnostic tools. The Sensations and Triggers Provoking Cough questionnaire (TOPIC) was developed to characterise cough in RUCC versus cough in other conditions.
methodsContent analysis of participant interviews discussing the sensations and triggers of chronic cough informed TOPIC development. Participants with chronic cough completed the draft-TOPIC (a subset repeating 5-7 days later), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Cough Severity Diary (CSD) and Global Rating of Change Scale. The draft-TOPIC item list was reduced in hierarchical and Rasch analysis to refine the questionnaire to the TOPIC.
results49 items describing the triggers and sensations of cough were generated from participant interviews (RUCC n=14, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) n=11, interstitial lung disease (ILD) n=10, asthma n=11, bronchiectasis n=3, cystic fibrosis n=7). 140 participants (median age 60.0 (19.0-88.0), female 56.4%; RUCC n=39, ILD n=38, asthma n=45, COPD n=6, bronchiectasis n=12) completed draft-TOPIC, where items with poor 'fit' for RUCC were removed to create TOPIC (8 trigger items, 7 sensation items). Median TOPIC score was significantly higher in RUCC (37.0) vs ILD (24.5, p=0.009) and asthma (7.0, p<0.001), but not bronchiectasis (20.0, p=0.318) or COPD (18.5, p=0.238), likely due to small sample sizes. The Rasch model demonstrated excellent fit in RUCC (χ
conclusionsHigh TOPIC scores in the RUCC patients suggest their cough is characterised by specific sensations and triggers. Validation of TOPIC in cough clinics may demonstrate value as an aid to identify features of RUCC versus cough in other conditions.
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.