Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42479260›Full record

ArticleLung2026

Patient-Anchored Cough Visual Analogue Scale and Leicester Cough Questionnaire Thresholds for Cough Control Classification in Chronic Cough.

Minkyo Suh, Ji-Yoon Oh, Ha-Kyeong Won, Ji-Hyang Lee, Young-Chan Kim, Eun-Jung Jo, Sung-Yoon Kang, So-Young Park, Hwa Young Lee, Mi-Yeong Kim and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Minkyo SuhDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.
Ji-Yoon OhDivision of Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ha-Kyeong WonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.
Ji-Hyang LeeLunit, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Young-Chan KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Jung JoDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea.
Sung-Yoon KangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
So-Young ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hwa Young LeeDivision of Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Mi-Yeong KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Kyung-Min AhnDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji-Su ShimDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Min-Hye KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jiung JeongDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Han-Ki ParkDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
So Ri KimDivision of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Heon KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yoon-Seok ChangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Hoon KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Eulji University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Byung-Jae LeeDivision of Allergy, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Surinder S BirringCentre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Woo-Jung SongDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. swj0126@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4630-9922
Korean Chronic Cough Registry Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe cough severity visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) are commonly used in chronic cough. While continuous scores are useful for tracking change, categorization is needed to define clinically relevant states. However, patient-anchored thresholds for cough control remain undefined.

methodsUsing the Korean Chronic Cough Registry (n = 890), we derived VAS and LCQ cutoffs anchored to a patient-reported cough control item. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed using operational definitions of very well-controlled cough ("strongly agree" vs. all others), well-controlled cough ("strongly agree" + "agree" vs. all others), and uncontrolled cough ("disagree" + "strongly disagree" vs. all others).

resultsBoth scores demonstrated stepwise gradients across cough control categories (p < 0.001). ROC-derived cutoffs for very well-controlled cough were VAS ≤ 10 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.911) and LCQ ≥ 15.8 (AUC, 0.877). For well-controlled cough, the corresponding cutoffs were VAS ≤ 30 (AUC, 0.866) and LCQ ≥ 15 (AUC, 0.856). For uncontrolled cough, the cutoffs were VAS ≥ 50 (AUC, 0.879) and LCQ ≤ 13.0 (AUC, 0.872). Cutoffs were consistent across newly referred chronic cough and refractory chronic cough subgroups. Concordance between VAS- and LCQ-derived classifications was moderate-to-substantial (weighted kappa = 0.55).

conclusionBased on these findings, we propose a patient-anchored classification framework for cough control: very well-controlled cough (VAS ≤ 10, LCQ ≥ 16), well-controlled cough (VAS 11-30, LCQ 15.0-15.9), intermediate cough control (VAS 31-49, LCQ 13.1-14.9), and uncontrolled cough (VAS ≥ 50, LCQ ≤ 13). These thresholds warrant validation in diverse populations.

Indexed as

Chronic CoughCoughVisual Analog ScaleAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRepublic of KoreaROC CurveSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesControlCoughPatient-reported outcomeRegistry

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.