ArticleLung2026
Validation Approaches for Cough Monitoring Tools: A Scoping Review.
Article in Lung, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize validation approaches used in ambulatory cough monitoring systems and identify methodological variability that may limit clinical and research applications. STUDY
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was performed in Embase (last updated May 8, 2026), and was limited to English-language, peer-reviewed human studies. REVIEW
methodsThis review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies were included if they reported validation of cough monitoring systems in human participants or human-derived datasets. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, with discrepancies resolved by a senior author. Data were extracted using a standardized form and synthesized descriptively.
resultsFifty studies met inclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated adult populations (72%) and were conducted in laboratory (29%) or home (25%) settings. Validation approaches were heterogeneous, with manual human annotation used as the reference standard in 66% of studies, neural network-based approaches in 12%, and alternative methods in 22%. Definitions of cough events and outcome metrics varied widely, including counts of cough events, epochs, and time-based measures. Technologies ranged from audio-based systems to wearable sensors and machine learning-enabled platforms. While many systems demonstrated high accuracy in controlled environments, performance in real-world settings was more variable, particularly in the presence of background noise and multiple speakers.
conclusionValidation of cough monitoring systems remains highly heterogeneous, with no standardized framework for reference measures or outcome metrics. Manual annotation is the most commonly used reference standard, although annotation methods and cough event definitions vary across studies. Standardization of validation protocols, development of shared datasets, and incorporation of real-world testing are needed to support clinical translation of cough monitoring technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42365132What 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.