ArticleTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Content validity of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a qualitative interview study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female predominance in chronic cough: biological sex-related factors, mechanisms, and therapeutic targets-a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Patient-reported assessments of chronic cough in clinical trials: accessory or primary endpoints?Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic cough, a cough lasting >8 weeks, includes refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are needed to better understand chronic cough impacts that matter most to patients. The 19-item Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), an existing PRO measure of chronic cough, assesses impacts of cough across physical, psychological, and social domains. However, the content validity of the LCQ evaluating these concepts in patients with RCC/UCC had not been established.
objectivesTo evaluate the content validity of the LCQ in patients with RCC/UCC.
designA cross-sectional, qualitative interview study.
methodsFirst, previously completed qualitative interview results in adults with RCC/UCC (
resultsConcepts reported in the past and present qualitative interviews were included across all LCQ items, and most impacts reported to be the "most bothersome" were assessed in the LCQ. In the current study, all participants indicated that reduced cough frequency would be an important treatment target. During cognitive debriefing, each LCQ item was endorsed by ⩾70% of participants. Additionally, participants were generally able to understand, recall, and select a response for each LCQ item. All participants and the clinical expert indicated that the LCQ was appropriate and assessed the impacts most relevant to patients with RCC/UCC.
conclusionOur findings support the content validity of the LCQ and demonstrate that this measure is fit-for-purpose and includes important cough impacts in adults with RCC/UCC.
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.