ArticleLung2026
Patient-Anchored Cough Visual Analogue Scale and Leicester Cough Questionnaire Thresholds for Cough Control Classification in Chronic Cough.
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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42479260What 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.