ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Cross-sectional evaluation of patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough by office-based pulmonologists in Germany.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Chronic cough (CC) is common in clinical practice, with refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC) being defined by guidelines from the European Respiratory Society, German Respiratory Society (DGP), and German Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) as separate entities. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of RCC/UCC in an outpatient setting of pulmonologists. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 16 pulmonologists' offices in Germany. Adult patients with a specialist's diagnosis of RCC or UCC and who provided informed consent were included. Active smokers were excluded. Results: Of 22,140 consecutive out-patients screened, 421 were eligible for general analysis, and 226 met the RCC/UCC criteria per DGP guidelines for prevalence analysis. Among the 421 patients, 71.3% were female, 77.9% had therapy-resistant chronic cough (TRCC), and 22.1% had UCC. The main causes of TRCC were otherwise controlled asthma (59.1%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (19.1%). Diagnosis had been established on average 6.4 ± 7.6 years prior. Common medications included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS/LABA: 45.6%, ICS mono: 26.8%), and herbal antitussives (23.3%). Codeine was used in 4.3% and morphine in 0.7%. Non-drug therapies like physiotherapy were infrequently used. Prevalence projections for RCC/UCC in Germany were 0.21 and 0.64%, based on different models. Conclusion: This study, the first in a secondary care setting in Germany to determine RCC/UCC prevalence in outpatients, found a higher prevalence in women and a long history of suffering. These findings underscore the need for improved diagnostic procedures and new therapeutic developments for RCC/UCC. Key limitations include the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on data collection, a relatively small UCC sample, and potential referral bias due to the secondary care setting.
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.