↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of Unexplained Chronic Cough CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

Overview of attention for article published in CHEST, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
87 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
7 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
271 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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
Treatment of Unexplained Chronic Cough CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
Published in
CHEST, January 2016
DOI 10.1378/chest.15-1496
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Gibson, Gang Wang, Lorcan McGarvey, Anne E. Vertigan, Kenneth W. Altman, Surinder S. Birring, CHEST Expert Cough Panel, 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

Unexplained chronic cough (UCC) causes significant quality of life impairment. There is a need to identify effective assessment and treatment approaches for UCC. This systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials asked: What is the efficacy of treatment compared to usual care on cough severity, cough frequency, and cough-related quality of life in patients with unexplained chronic cough (UCC)? Studies of adults and adolescents >12 years with a chronic cough of >8 weeks duration that was unexplained after systematic investigation and treatment were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based upon the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted upon using CHEST organization methodology. 11 RCTs and 5 systematic reviews were included. The 11 RCTs reported data on 570 participants with chronic cough who received a variety of interventions. Study quality was high in 10 RCTs. The studies used a variety of descriptors and assessments to identify unexplained chronic cough. While gabapentin and morphine showed positive effects on cough-related quality of life, only gabapentin was supported as a treatment recommendation. Studies of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) suffered from intervention fidelity bias, and when this was addressed, ICS were not found to be effective for UCC. Esomeprazole was not effective for UCC without features of gastroesophageal acid reflux. Studies addressing non-acid gastroesophageal reflux were not identified. A multimodality speech pathology intervention improved cough severity. The evidence supporting the diagnosis and management of UCC is limited. UCC requires further study to establish agreed terminology and the optimal methods of investigation using established criteria for intervention fidelity. Speech pathology based cough suppression is suggested as a treatment option for UCC. This guideline presents suggestions for diagnosis and treatment based on the best available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge and areas for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 283 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 44 15%
Researcher 42 15%
Student > Postgraduate 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Other 69 24%
Unknown 69 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 84 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 137. 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 17 December 2023.
All research outputs
#307,257
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from CHEST
#179
of 13,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,189
of 402,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CHEST
#6
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,302 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 402,115 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.