ArticleERJ open research2026
Prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of guideline-based therapy for chronic cough and refractory chronic cough: PROCOUGH.
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. 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.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aim: Chronic cough is a common and burdensome condition with limited licensed therapies. Current guidelines recommend identifying treatable traits and using off-label therapies based largely on small clinical trials, but the real-world effectiveness of this approach remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of guideline-based therapies on objective and patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic cough attending a tertiary cough clinic. Methods: PROCOUGH was a prospective, single-centre, observational cohort study conducted at McMaster University Medical Centre (December 2021 to May 2025). Adults with chronic cough (>8 weeks) underwent comprehensive assessment, including lung function testing, airway inflammation measures, sputum cytology and 24-h cough monitoring (VitaloJAK™), alongside patient-reported outcomes. Patients were treated according to European Respiratory Society guideline recommendations, with all assessments repeated after a treatment trial. The primary outcome was change in 24-h cough frequency. Secondary outcomes included Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and Cough severity visual analogue scale (CS-VAS). Responder analyses were based on ≥30% cough frequency reduction, ≥30 mm CS-VAS improvement and ≥1.3-point LCQ increase. Results: 100 patients completed follow-up (mean±sd age 58.1±14.0 years; 58% female; median cough duration 7 years). Treatment resulted in a 54% reduction in 24-h cough frequency (95% CI 42.0-62.9%), a 20.2-mm decrease in CS-VAS (95% CI -26.2- -14.2) and a 3.4-point increase in LCQ (95% CI 2.6-4.2). Individually, 56%, 36% and 64% met cough frequency, CS-VAS and LCQ responder criteria, respectively, but only 14% met all three. Despite treatment, 71% reported insufficient cough control. Conclusion: Guideline-based therapy improves objective and subjective cough outcomes; however, most patients fail to achieve satisfactory symptom control, highlighting a substantial unmet need for effective treatments for refractory unexplained chronic cough.
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.