ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Clinical validation of the Rapid Cough Questionnaire across diverse lung diseases.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Rapid Cough Questionnaire (RCQ) is a simplified three-item instrument developed as a pragmatic alternative to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). However, its performance across diverse respiratory diseases, particularly structural lung diseases, has not been sufficiently validated. This study evaluated the performance of the RCQ across major respiratory disease subgroups.
methodsA total of 300 adult patients with chronic cough were prospectively enrolled from multiple respiratory centres. Participants completed five cough-specific instruments: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Cough Symptom Score (CSS), COugh Assessment Test (COAT), LCQ and RCQ. Construct validity was evaluated using correlation analyses across disease subgroups, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and bronchiectasis.
resultsThe RCQ showed strong correlations with the LCQ (r=0.93), COAT (r=-0.75), CSS (r=-0.62) and NRS (r=-0.59). These relationships remained robust among all aetiologies, with the correlation coefficients between RCQ and LCQ exceeding 0.88 in each subgroup. Bland-Altman plots and an intraclass correlation analysis indicated a high level of concordance between the RCQ and LCQ scores. The RCQ aligned closely with multidimensional symptom burden and maintained strong correlation with the LCQ even for IPF, where LCQ correlations with unidimensional tools (NRS or CSS) were attenuated.
conclusionsThe RCQ demonstrated strong cross-sectional concordance with the LCQ across heterogeneous respiratory conditions. Its brevity and consistent performance support its suitability in routine clinical practice and large-scale or longitudinal research settings. Further studies are warranted to evaluate its responsiveness and longitudinal performance.
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.