ArticleERJ open research2025
Chronic Cough Patient Perspective: questionnaire validation and symptom impact.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of cough evaluation test in subacute cough.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic cough (CC) is underevaluated and underreported. The introduction of a tool that is easy to complete, score and interpret and with the psychometric properties requested for use in individual patients could improve clinical practice. Objective: This cross-sectional study aimed to validate the Chronic Cough Patient Perspective (CCPP) for assessing CC in daily practice. Methods: A provisional CCPP was created by iteratively reducing the Chronic Cough Impact Questionnaire (CCIQ). Its psychometric properties were tested in CC patients at baseline (visit 1) and after 1 month (visit 2). Results: The reduction process yielded an 8-item provisional version, subsequently validated in 150 patients (36.33% males, mean age 50±16.9 years). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a one-dimensional structure, with one item being deleted as it did not align with the extracted dimension. The 7-item version of the CCPP showed a strong correlation with the CCIQ (r=0.902 at visit 1, r=0.932 at visit 2) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha values: 0.85 at visit 1, 0.93 at visit 2); discriminant and convergent validity were satisfactory. The reliability, assessed in 21 patients with no change in CC (Global Rating Scale=0), was high (concordance correlation coefficient=0.815; interclass coefficient=0.823). A score ≤5 indicates optimal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) attainment, with a minimum important difference of 3. The mean CCPP score was 20.5±6.24 at enrolment, and only 37.33% of the participants achieved an optimal HRQoL at visit 2. Conclusion: The CCPP exhibited good psychometric properties suitable for clinical use, providing a valid, reliable and standardised assessment of CC's impact on HRQoL.
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.