ArticleLung2026
A Scoping Literature Review of Digital Measures and Patient-Reported Outcomes for Refractory/Unexplained Chronic Cough: Assessment of Clinical Trials and Real-World Clinical Practice.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRefractory/unexplained chronic cough (RCC/UCC) is a disease associated with substantial clinical and humanistic burden. A variety of endpoints have been used in RCC/UCC research to measure cough outcomes and impact on patients' quality of life (QoL), including clinical measures of cough using digital devices, or digital measures, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The aim of this review was to determine which endpoints are currently used in studies of RCC/UCC, and to explore the recent evolution of new digital measures used across research and clinical settings.
methodsWe conducted a scoping literature review (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2024), assessing studies of adults diagnosed with chronic cough (refractory/unexplained or newly diagnosed). Clinical trials and observational/real-world studies were included that evaluated objective and PRO measures of cough frequency, severity, symptoms, other cough characterization, and QoL.
resultsOverall, 70 studies (29 manuscripts, 35 clinicaltrials.gov entries, 6 posters/abstracts) were included: 36 clinical trials (Phase 2, 3, or 4), 34 observational/real-world studies. Objective cough frequency was the primary endpoint in 24/36 clinical trials. In contrast, objective cough frequency was reported in 10/34 observational/real-world studies. Observational/real-world studies had a greater variety of endpoints for cough outcomes and PROs compared with clinical trials.
conclusionsClinical trials and observational/real-world studies of chronic cough and RCC use a wide range of outcome measures, including objective measures of cough frequency using digital devices (digital endpoints) and subjective PROs. New approaches to digital endpoints and PROs are being developed as the study and treatment of cough evolves.
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.