Evaluation and impact of chronic cough: comparison of specific vs generic quality-of-life questionnaires

Kalpaklıoğlu, Ayşe Füsun; Kara, Türkan; Kurtipek, Ercan; Koçyiğit, Pınar; Ekici, Aydanur; Ekici, Mehmet

doi:10.1016/s1081-1206(10)61137-4

Cited by 38 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study comparing a translated LCQ and CQLQ in Turkish patients with chronic cough found a moderate correlation between the questionnaires [112]. Both translated questionnaires showed good concurrent validity and responsiveness, which suggests that the LCQ and CQLQ may be adaptable for patients from a different cultural background.…”

Section: Health Status In Chronic Coughmentioning

confidence: 95%

ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough

Morice¹,

Fontana²,

Belvisi³

et al. 2007

European Respiratory Journal

587

610

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Health Status In Chronic Coughmentioning

confidence: 95%

ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough

Morice¹,

Fontana²,

Belvisi³

et al. 2007

European Respiratory Journal

587

610

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In chronic conditions, questionnaires targeting symptoms specific to the condition, exploring their physical effects, the subsequent restrictions in daily life and effect on mood are useful and relevant [6,7]. Such questionnaires provide a unique integration of physical and psychosocial morbidity, unlike other clinical parameters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

Murray¹,

Turnbull²,

MacQuarrie³

et al. 2009

European Respiratory Journal

147

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health-related quality of life is a potentially important marker for evaluating existing and new therapies in bronchiectasis. The Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) is a symptom specific questionnaire designed to assess the impact of cough severity, a major symptom of bronchiectasis. This study aimed to validate the LCQ in bronchiectasis.The validity, responsiveness and reliability of the LCQ were assessed as follows: ability to discriminate severe and mild disease; change in score following antibiotic treatment for exacerbations; repeatability over a 6-month period in stable disease; and comparison with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).In total, 120 patients (51 with severe disease, 29 with moderate disease and 40 with mild disease) completed the LCQ and SGRQ. The area under the receiver-operator curve was good for both severe and mild disease (0.84 and 0.80 respectively, p,0.0001). Following 2 weeks' antibiotic treatment, the median LCQ score (interquartile range) improved from 11.3 (9.3-13.7) to 17.8 (15-18.8) (p,0.0001). The LCQ score was repeatable over 6 months in stable disease (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.96 (95%CI 0.93-0.97), p,0.0001). Correlation between the LCQ and SGRQ scores was -0.7 in both stable disease and exacerbations (p,0.0001).The LCQ can discriminate disease severity, is responsive to change and is reliable for use in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.

show abstract

“…Ten of them were validation studies concerning cough frequency monitoring in children and/or adults [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Seven studies validating cough-specific quality-of-life scores were included [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 in adults [10,30,31,32,33,34] and 6 in children [19,35,36,37,38,39], compared subjective measurements with objective cough frequency measurements. Three studies compared subjective methods with a quality-of-life score [28,40,41]. Finally, 6 studies compared quality-of-life scores with objective measurements of cough [30,31,33,42,43,44].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validated Methods of Cough Assessment: A Systematic Review of the Literature

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cough is a common symptom for which patients often seek medical advice and consume vast amounts of drugs. It is a real challenge for both the physician and the clinical researcher to evaluate a cough’s clinical importance and its precise response to treatment. Objectives: This systematic literature review has the following objectives: first, to make an inventory of the validated tools for assessing cough, and second, to investigate the extent to which the results of various assessment methods can be correlated. Methods: Two independent investigators searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for validation studies on cough assessment tools. Results: Thirty-four studies were included. Several ambulatory cough monitors automatically identify cough and have been validated in a limited number of patients. Three cough-specific quality-of-life scales (Leicester Cough Questionnaire, Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Burden of Cough Questionnaire) have been validated. No validation studies of descriptive scores or visual analogue scales were found. The correlations between quality-of-life scores and cough frequency were good. The correlations between descriptive scores or visual analogue scales and more objective methods, such as cough frequency monitoring or quality-of-life scores, were inconsistent. Conclusion: Cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaires can provide valid outcomes for research into cough. Although the current developments in cough monitoring devices are promising, further studies on a larger scale, under more realistic conditions, and for different patterns of cough are required before they can be recommended for widespread use.

show abstract

Evaluation and impact of chronic cough: comparison of specific vs generic quality-of-life questionnaires

Cited by 38 publications

References 15 publications

ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough

ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough

Validation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

Validated Methods of Cough Assessment: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About