PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.
METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.
RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.
METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.
RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.
摘要：
背景：自2006年美国胸科医师学会（CHEST）咳嗽指南发布以来，已经开发或进一步完善了各种工具来评估咳嗽。本委员会的目的是评估进行慢性咳嗽临床研究的研究者使用的仪器。具体目的是(1)评估旨在测量咳嗽频率的工具的性能，严重程度,以及对成年人的影响，青少年,和患有慢性咳嗽的儿童，（2）提出与这些发现相关的建议或建议。
方法：按照CHEST方法指南，CHEST专家咳嗽小组的建议和建议基于美国医疗保健研究和质量机构最近发布的比较有效性审查，发表在CHEST上的相应摘要，以及截至2013年11月的最新系统审查。讨论了基于这些数据的建议或建议，分级，并在专家咳嗽小组会议上进行了投票。
结果：我们建议成人，青少年（≥14岁），和儿童抱怨慢性咳嗽，验证和可靠的健康相关的生活质量（QoL）问卷被用作衡量选择，以评估咳嗽的影响，例如成人和青少年患者的莱斯特咳嗽问卷和咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷，以及儿童的父母咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷。我们建议声学咳嗽计数来评估咳嗽频率，但不评估咳嗽严重程度。关于视觉模拟量表的性能的数据有限，数字评级量表，和过敏挑战。
结论：推荐使用经过验证和可靠的咳嗽特异性健康相关QoL问卷作为评估咳嗽对患者影响的选择。如何比较尚待确定。使用时,通过视觉模拟或数字评定量表报告咳嗽严重程度应标准化.先前验证的QoL问卷或其他咳嗽评估不应修改，除非新版本已被证明是可靠和有效的。最后,在研究环境中，致咳性挑战在了解咳嗽机制中发挥作用。
方法：按照CHEST方法指南，CHEST专家咳嗽小组的建议和建议基于美国医疗保健研究和质量机构最近发布的比较有效性审查，发表在CHEST上的相应摘要，以及截至2013年11月的最新系统审查。讨论了基于这些数据的建议或建议，分级，并在专家咳嗽小组会议上进行了投票。
结果：我们建议成人，青少年（≥14岁），和儿童抱怨慢性咳嗽，验证和可靠的健康相关的生活质量（QoL）问卷被用作衡量选择，以评估咳嗽的影响，例如成人和青少年患者的莱斯特咳嗽问卷和咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷，以及儿童的父母咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷。我们建议声学咳嗽计数来评估咳嗽频率，但不评估咳嗽严重程度。关于视觉模拟量表的性能的数据有限，数字评级量表，和过敏挑战。
结论：推荐使用经过验证和可靠的咳嗽特异性健康相关QoL问卷作为评估咳嗽对患者影响的选择。如何比较尚待确定。使用时,通过视觉模拟或数字评定量表报告咳嗽严重程度应标准化.先前验证的QoL问卷或其他咳嗽评估不应修改，除非新版本已被证明是可靠和有效的。最后,在研究环境中，致咳性挑战在了解咳嗽机制中发挥作用。
