ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Validation of cough evaluation test in subacute cough.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cough evaluation test (CET) is a simple and effective subjective tool designed to evaluate physical, psychological and social impact of chronic cough. However, it has not been validated in subacute cough. This study aims to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of CET in patients with subacute cough. Methods: A total of 158 patients with subacute cough were recruited from the outpatient department of The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University between November 2022 and March 2024. All patients provided demographic information and completed CET, cough severity Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Mandarin Chinese version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-MC) and Cough Symptom Score (CSS) at baseline. Sixty-five patients were followed up via telephone after 7 days, and finished CET, VAS, CSS and Global Rating of Change Questionnaire. Internal consistency, item analysis, concurrent validity, repeatability, responsiveness and minimal important clinical difference were evaluated. Results: Among all 158 patients, the median age and cough duration were 36.0 (30.0, 49.0) years and 4.0 (4.0, 6.0) weeks, respectively, and 56.3% were female. CET demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =0.805). It showed moderate to strong correlations with VAS (r=0.662), LCQ-MC (r=-0.732), CSS total (r=0.672), CSS daytime (r=0.558) and CSS nighttime (r=0.509). VAS exhibited a stronger correlation with CET than with LCQ-MC and CSS nighttime (both P<0.001). Moreover, correlation between LCQ-MC and CET was higher than that between LCQ-MC and VAS/CSS total/CSS daytime/CSS nighttime (all P<0.001). Despite slight changes in cough condition, the intraclass correlation coefficient for CET was 0.571 (P<0.001). CET significantly decreased from 15.0 (13.0, 17.0) at baseline to 9.0 (7.0, 12.0) at follow-up. Minimal important clinical difference of CET was 2.0 (1.0, 5.0). Conclusions: CET is a reliable, valid and responsive subjective tool for assessing subacute cough. CET could evaluate multidimensional impact of cough in a simpler and quicker way, which contributes to the cough assessment in clinics and researches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.