↓ Skip to main content

Somatic Cough Syndrome (Previously Referred to as Psychogenic Cough) and Tic Cough (Previously Referred to as Habit Cough) in Adults and Children

Overview of attention for article published in CHEST, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Somatic Cough Syndrome (Previously Referred to as Psychogenic Cough) and Tic Cough (Previously Referred to as Habit Cough) in Adults and Children
Published in
CHEST, July 2015
DOI 10.1378/chest.15-0423
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne E. Vertigan, Mohammad H. Murad, Tamara Pringsheim, Anthony Feinstein, Anne B. Chang, Peter A. Newcombe, Bruce K. Rubin, Lorcan P. McGarvey, Kelly Weir, Kenneth W. Altman, Miles Weinberger, Richard S. Irwin, Todd M. Adams, Kenneth W. Altman, Alan F. Barker, Surinder S. Birring, Fiona Blackhall, Donald C. Bolser, Louis-Philippe Boulet, Sidney S. Braman, Christopher Brightling, Priscilla Callahan-Lyon, Brendan J. Canning, Anne B. Chang, Remy Coeytaux, Terrie Cowley, Paul Davenport, Rebecca L. Diekemper, Satoru Ebihara, Ali A. El Solh, Patricio Escalante, Anthony Feinstein, Stephen K. Field, Dina Fisher, Cynthia T. French, Peter Gibson, Philip Gold, Michael K. Gould, Cameron Grant, Susan M. Harding, Anthony Harnden, Adam T. Hill, Richard S. Irwin, Peter J. Kahrilas, Karina A. Keogh, Andrew P. Lane, Kaiser Lim, Mark A. Malesker, Peter Mazzone, Stuart Mazzone, Douglas C. McCrory, Lorcan McGarvey, Alex Molasiotis, M. Hassan Murad, Peter Newcombe, Huong Q. Nguyen, John Oppenheimer, David Prezant, Tamara Pringsheim, Marcos I. Restrepo, Mark Rosen, Bruce Rubin, Jay H. Ryu, Jaclyn Smith, Susan M. Tarlo, Anne E. Vertigan, Gang Wang, Miles Weinberger, Kelly Weir, Renda Soylemez Wiener

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review on the management of psychogenic cough, habit cough, and tic cough to update the recommendations and suggestions of the 2006 guideline on this topic. We followed the CHEST methodological guidelines and the GRADE framework. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on data from the systematic review, patients' values and preferences and the clinical context. Final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology. The results of the systematic review revealed only low quality evidence to support how to define or diagnose psychogenic or habit cough with no validated diagnostic criteria. With respect to treatment, low quality evidence allowed the committee to only suggest therapy for children thought to have psychogenic cough. Such therapy might consist of non-pharmacological trials of hypnosis or suggestion therapy or combinations of reassurance, counselling, and referral to a psychologist, psychotherapy and appropriate psychotropic medications. Based on multiple resources and contemporary psychological, psychiatric and neurological criteria (DSM-5 and tic disorder guidelines), the committee suggests that the terms psychogenic and habit cough are out of date and inaccurate. Compared to the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the major change in suggestions is that the terms psychogenic and habit cough be abandoned in favour of Somatic Cough Syndrome and Habit Cough, respectively, even though the evidence to do so at this time is of low quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 12%
Other 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 42%
Psychology 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 34 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,918,512
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from CHEST
#1,628
of 13,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,249
of 278,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CHEST
#19
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.