Cough monitoring systems in adults with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review.

IF 9 1区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
European Respiratory Review Pub Date : 2025-03-05 Print Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1183/16000617.0212-2023
Latisha E Witjaksono, Max Schulte, Anne E Holland, Marlies S Wijsenbeek, Yet H Khor
{"title":"Cough monitoring systems in adults with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review.","authors":"Latisha E Witjaksono, Max Schulte, Anne E Holland, Marlies S Wijsenbeek, Yet H Khor","doi":"10.1183/16000617.0212-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of objective cough monitoring systems for assessments in adults with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) is unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesise current literature on frequency of use and characteristics of these systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically searched to identify relevant literature evaluating cough in adults with CRDs using objective cough monitoring systems. The primary outcomes were utility and characteristics of the systems, with the secondary outcome being usability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 54 primary studies (4909 patients, with 3364 having idiopathic chronic cough). Included studies were generally of low risk of bias. Objective monitoring systems identified were VitaloJAK (n=19 studies), Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM, n=18), LEOSound (n=2), PulmoTrack (n=2), Hull Automated Cough Counter (HACC, n=1), LifeShirt (n=1), and unnamed devices (n=11). There was limited assessment against manual counting, with low-to-moderate correlation to patient-reported outcome measures for VitaloJAK (p<0.05), LCM (r=0.43-0.78) and unnamed devices (r=0.38-0.40). Test-retest consistency was evaluated in two studies, showing favourable results. There was at least moderate effect size of longitudinal measurement changes to various treatments for VitaloJAK (nine out of 16), LCM (two out of eight), HACC (n=1), LCM and HACC (n=1), PulmoTrack (n=1) and unnamed devices (n=3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Few studies evaluated the agreement of objective cough monitoring systems against manual counting. Most studies were conducted in patients with idiopathic chronic cough, with the VitaloJAK and LCM being were the most evaluated objective cough monitoring systems. Further evaluation of objective cough monitoring systems is needed for research and clinic application.</p>","PeriodicalId":12166,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Review","volume":"34 175","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880901/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0212-2023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The role of objective cough monitoring systems for assessments in adults with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) is unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesise current literature on frequency of use and characteristics of these systems.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically searched to identify relevant literature evaluating cough in adults with CRDs using objective cough monitoring systems. The primary outcomes were utility and characteristics of the systems, with the secondary outcome being usability.

Results: We identified 54 primary studies (4909 patients, with 3364 having idiopathic chronic cough). Included studies were generally of low risk of bias. Objective monitoring systems identified were VitaloJAK (n=19 studies), Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM, n=18), LEOSound (n=2), PulmoTrack (n=2), Hull Automated Cough Counter (HACC, n=1), LifeShirt (n=1), and unnamed devices (n=11). There was limited assessment against manual counting, with low-to-moderate correlation to patient-reported outcome measures for VitaloJAK (p<0.05), LCM (r=0.43-0.78) and unnamed devices (r=0.38-0.40). Test-retest consistency was evaluated in two studies, showing favourable results. There was at least moderate effect size of longitudinal measurement changes to various treatments for VitaloJAK (nine out of 16), LCM (two out of eight), HACC (n=1), LCM and HACC (n=1), PulmoTrack (n=1) and unnamed devices (n=3).

Conclusions: Few studies evaluated the agreement of objective cough monitoring systems against manual counting. Most studies were conducted in patients with idiopathic chronic cough, with the VitaloJAK and LCM being were the most evaluated objective cough monitoring systems. Further evaluation of objective cough monitoring systems is needed for research and clinic application.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Respiratory Review
European Respiratory Review Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
1.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Respiratory Review (ERR) is an open-access journal published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), serving as a vital resource for respiratory professionals by delivering updates on medicine, science, and surgery in the field. ERR features state-of-the-art review articles, editorials, correspondence, and summaries of recent research findings and studies covering a wide range of topics including COPD, asthma, pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary infections. Articles are published continuously and compiled into quarterly issues within a single annual volume.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信