Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40498172›Full record

Trial reportJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Psychometric validation of the severity of chronic cough diary, leicester cough questionnaire, and a cough severity visual analogue scale in patients with refractory chronic cough.

Andrew Trigg, Nathan Clarke, Christoph Gerlinger, Ulrike Krahn, Adam Gater, Claudia Haberland

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIValidation StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04562155 (Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel Group, Phase 2b Dose-finding, Efficacy and Safety Study of 12-week Twice Daily Oral Administration of BAY 1817080 Compared to Placebo in the Treatment of Refractory and/or Unexplained Chronic Cough), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04562155 phase2completednot on this map

Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel Group, Phase 2b Dose-finding, Efficacy and Safety Study of 12-week Twice Daily Oral Administration of BAY 1817080 Compared to Placebo in the Treatment of Refractory and/or Unexplained Chronic Cough (RUCC)

TypeinterventionalSponsorBayerRan2020 to 2021Enrolled310ConditionsRefractory and/or Unexplained Chronic CoughArmsBAY1817080, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrew TriggBayer plc, Reading, UK. andrew.trigg@bayer.com.
Nathan ClarkeAdelphi Values, Macclesfield, UK.
Christoph GerlingerBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike KrahnBayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany.
Adam GaterAdelphi Values, Macclesfield, UK.
Claudia HaberlandBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRefractory chronic cough (RCC) is commonly reported in primary care and associated with significant morbidity. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are important for evaluating the efficacy of antitussive medications for RCC in clinical trials from the patient-perspective. Psychometric properties of Severity of Chronic Cough Diary (SCCD) Cough Severity and Cough Frequency, Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) Total and Physical Domain and Cough Severity Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores using data from a 12-week Phase 2b trial evaluating the efficacy of eliapixant in patients with RCC (NCT04562155) are reported.

resultsQuality of completion for the SCCD, LCQ and Cough Severity VAS across the study was high, no ceiling or floor effects were observed at baseline. Internal consistency for LCQ Total and Physical domain scores was also high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.939 and 0.806, respectively). SCCD Cough Frequency and Cough Severity, LCQ Total and Physical domain, and Cough Severity VAS scores demonstrated strong test-retest reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.848) among participants defined as stable between Week 3 and Week 4 according to Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) ratings and Awake Cough Count readings. Construct validity was supported by known-groups comparisons, with large differences (effect sizes 1.99-4.16) observed between groups categorized according to PGI-S ratings and objective Awake Cough Counts. Ability to detect improvement was supported by large effect sizes (≥0.8) observed for mean changes in SCCD, LCQ and Cough Severity VAS scores from baseline to Week 12 among participants classified as 'improved' according to PGI-S/PGI-C ratings and Awake Cough Counts. Triangulated thresholds (score range) for meaningful within-patient improvement based on anchor-based assessments were -0.82 for SCCD Cough Frequency (0-4), -0.69 for SCCD Cough Severity (0-4), 2.36 for the LCQ Total (3-21), 0.77 for the LCQ Physical (1-7) and -17.73 for the Cough Severity VAS (0-100) scores.

conclusionFindings support the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the newly developed SCCD Cough Frequency and Severity items as fit-for-purpose PRO measures of cough frequency or severity for use in drug development programs within RCC. The LCQ Total, LCQ Physical Domain and Cough Severity VAS also exhibit acceptable measurement properties for use in this population.

Indexed as

CoughPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedAntitussive AgentsChronic CoughChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesVisual Analog ScaleAntitussive AgentsCough severity VASLeicester cough questionnaireMeaningful changePatient-reported outcomePsychometric validationRefractory chronic coughReliabilitySeverity of chronic cough diaryValidity

Identifiers

PMID40498172
PMCPMC12158865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.