开发并验证一种新型问卷,用于描述和评估与难治性和不明原因慢性咳嗽相关的感觉和诱因。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM BMJ Open Respiratory Research Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002430
Shannon Galgani, Chelsea Sawyer, Jenny King, Rachel Dockry, James Wingfield-Digby, Kimberly Holt, Joanne Mitchell, Shilpi Sen, Danielle Birchall, Francesca Solari, Jacky Smith, Janelle Yorke
{"title":"开发并验证一种新型问卷,用于描述和评估与难治性和不明原因慢性咳嗽相关的感觉和诱因。","authors":"Shannon Galgani, Chelsea Sawyer, Jenny King, Rachel Dockry, James Wingfield-Digby, Kimberly Holt, Joanne Mitchell, Shilpi Sen, Danielle Birchall, Francesca Solari, Jacky Smith, Janelle Yorke","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RUCC) is a common clinical problem with no effective diagnostic tools. The Sensations and Triggers Provoking Cough questionnaire (TOPIC) was developed to characterise cough in RUCC versus cough in other conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Content analysis of participant interviews discussing the sensations and triggers of chronic cough informed TOPIC development. Participants with chronic cough completed the draft-TOPIC (a subset repeating 5-7 days later), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Cough Severity Diary (CSD) and Global Rating of Change Scale. The draft-TOPIC item list was reduced in hierarchical and Rasch analysis to refine the questionnaire to the TOPIC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>49 items describing the triggers and sensations of cough were generated from participant interviews (RUCC n=14, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) n=11, interstitial lung disease (ILD) n=10, asthma n=11, bronchiectasis n=3, cystic fibrosis n=7). 140 participants (median age 60.0 (19.0-88.0), female 56.4%; RUCC n=39, ILD n=38, asthma n=45, COPD n=6, bronchiectasis n=12) completed draft-TOPIC, where items with poor 'fit' for RUCC were removed to create TOPIC (8 trigger items, 7 sensation items). Median TOPIC score was significantly higher in RUCC (37.0) vs ILD (24.5, p=0.009) and asthma (7.0, p<0.001), but not bronchiectasis (20.0, p=0.318) or COPD (18.5, p=0.238), likely due to small sample sizes. The Rasch model demonstrated excellent fit in RUCC (χ<sup>2</sup>=22.04, p=0.85; PSI=0.88); as expected. When all participant groups were included, fit was no longer demonstrated (χ<sup>2</sup>=66.43, p=0.0001, PSI=0.89) due to the increased heterogeneity (CI=0.077). TOPIC correlated positively with SGRQ (r=0.47, p<0.001) and CSD (r=0.63, p<0.001). The test-retest reliability of TOPIC (intraclass correlation coefficient) was excellent (r=0.90, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>High TOPIC scores in the RUCC patients suggest their cough is characterised by specific sensations and triggers. Validation of TOPIC in cough clinics may demonstrate value as an aid to identify features of RUCC versus cough in other conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331982/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and validation of a novel questionnaire to describe and assess sensations and triggers associated with refractory and unexplained chronic cough.\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Galgani, Chelsea Sawyer, Jenny King, Rachel Dockry, James Wingfield-Digby, Kimberly Holt, Joanne Mitchell, Shilpi Sen, Danielle Birchall, Francesca Solari, Jacky Smith, Janelle Yorke\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RUCC) is a common clinical problem with no effective diagnostic tools. The Sensations and Triggers Provoking Cough questionnaire (TOPIC) was developed to characterise cough in RUCC versus cough in other conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Content analysis of participant interviews discussing the sensations and triggers of chronic cough informed TOPIC development. Participants with chronic cough completed the draft-TOPIC (a subset repeating 5-7 days later), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Cough Severity Diary (CSD) and Global Rating of Change Scale. The draft-TOPIC item list was reduced in hierarchical and Rasch analysis to refine the questionnaire to the TOPIC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>49 items describing the triggers and sensations of cough were generated from participant interviews (RUCC n=14, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) n=11, interstitial lung disease (ILD) n=10, asthma n=11, bronchiectasis n=3, cystic fibrosis n=7). 140 participants (median age 60.0 (19.0-88.0), female 56.4%; RUCC n=39, ILD n=38, asthma n=45, COPD n=6, bronchiectasis n=12) completed draft-TOPIC, where items with poor 'fit' for RUCC were removed to create TOPIC (8 trigger items, 7 sensation items). Median TOPIC score was significantly higher in RUCC (37.0) vs ILD (24.5, p=0.009) and asthma (7.0, p<0.001), but not bronchiectasis (20.0, p=0.318) or COPD (18.5, p=0.238), likely due to small sample sizes. The Rasch model demonstrated excellent fit in RUCC (χ<sup>2</sup>=22.04, p=0.85; PSI=0.88); as expected. When all participant groups were included, fit was no longer demonstrated (χ<sup>2</sup>=66.43, p=0.0001, PSI=0.89) due to the increased heterogeneity (CI=0.077). TOPIC correlated positively with SGRQ (r=0.47, p<0.001) and CSD (r=0.63, p<0.001). The test-retest reliability of TOPIC (intraclass correlation coefficient) was excellent (r=0.90, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>High TOPIC scores in the RUCC patients suggest their cough is characterised by specific sensations and triggers. Validation of TOPIC in cough clinics may demonstrate value as an aid to identify features of RUCC versus cough in other conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331982/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002430\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002430","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介难治性或原因不明的慢性咳嗽(RUCC)是一种常见的临床问题,目前尚无有效的诊断工具。我们开发了 "引起咳嗽的感觉和诱因 "调查问卷(TOPIC),以描述 RUCC 中的咳嗽与其他情况下的咳嗽的特征:方法:对讨论慢性咳嗽的感觉和诱因的参与者访谈进行内容分析,为 TOPIC 的开发提供依据。慢性咳嗽患者填写了TOPIC草案(5-7天后重复的子集)、圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)、咳嗽严重程度日记(CSD)和总体变化量表。通过层次分析和 Rasch 分析对 TOPIC 项目表草案进行了缩减,以完善 TOPIC 问卷:通过对参与者(RUCC n=14、慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)n=11、间质性肺病(ILD)n=10、哮喘n=11、支气管扩张n=3、囊性纤维化n=7)的访谈,得出了 49 个描述咳嗽诱因和感觉的项目。140 名参与者(中位年龄 60.0 (19.0-88.0),女性 56.4%;RUCC n=39,ILD n=38,哮喘 n=45,COPD n=6,支气管扩张 n=12)完成了 TOPIC 草案,其中删除了与 RUCC "契合度 "较低的项目,以创建 TOPIC(8 个触发项目,7 个感觉项目)。与 ILD(24.5,P=0.009)和哮喘(7.0,P2=22.04,P=0.85;PSI=0.88)相比,RUCC(37.0)的 TOPIC 得分中值明显更高;这在意料之中。当纳入所有参与者组别时,由于异质性增加(CI=0.077),不再显示拟合(χ2=66.43,P=0.0001,PSI=0.89)。TOPIC 与 SGRQ 呈正相关(r=0.47,p 结论:RUCC患者的TOPIC得分较高,这表明他们的咳嗽具有特定的感觉和诱因。在咳嗽门诊中对 TOPIC 进行验证可能会显示出其价值,有助于识别 RUCC 与其他疾病的咳嗽特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development and validation of a novel questionnaire to describe and assess sensations and triggers associated with refractory and unexplained chronic cough.

Introduction: Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RUCC) is a common clinical problem with no effective diagnostic tools. The Sensations and Triggers Provoking Cough questionnaire (TOPIC) was developed to characterise cough in RUCC versus cough in other conditions.

Methods: Content analysis of participant interviews discussing the sensations and triggers of chronic cough informed TOPIC development. Participants with chronic cough completed the draft-TOPIC (a subset repeating 5-7 days later), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Cough Severity Diary (CSD) and Global Rating of Change Scale. The draft-TOPIC item list was reduced in hierarchical and Rasch analysis to refine the questionnaire to the TOPIC.

Results: 49 items describing the triggers and sensations of cough were generated from participant interviews (RUCC n=14, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) n=11, interstitial lung disease (ILD) n=10, asthma n=11, bronchiectasis n=3, cystic fibrosis n=7). 140 participants (median age 60.0 (19.0-88.0), female 56.4%; RUCC n=39, ILD n=38, asthma n=45, COPD n=6, bronchiectasis n=12) completed draft-TOPIC, where items with poor 'fit' for RUCC were removed to create TOPIC (8 trigger items, 7 sensation items). Median TOPIC score was significantly higher in RUCC (37.0) vs ILD (24.5, p=0.009) and asthma (7.0, p<0.001), but not bronchiectasis (20.0, p=0.318) or COPD (18.5, p=0.238), likely due to small sample sizes. The Rasch model demonstrated excellent fit in RUCC (χ2=22.04, p=0.85; PSI=0.88); as expected. When all participant groups were included, fit was no longer demonstrated (χ2=66.43, p=0.0001, PSI=0.89) due to the increased heterogeneity (CI=0.077). TOPIC correlated positively with SGRQ (r=0.47, p<0.001) and CSD (r=0.63, p<0.001). The test-retest reliability of TOPIC (intraclass correlation coefficient) was excellent (r=0.90, p<0.001).

Conclusions: High TOPIC scores in the RUCC patients suggest their cough is characterised by specific sensations and triggers. Validation of TOPIC in cough clinics may demonstrate value as an aid to identify features of RUCC versus cough in other conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Pulmonary fibrosis followed by severe pneumonia in patients with COVID-19 infection requiring mechanical ventilation: a prospective multicentre study. Estimating rate of lung function change using clinical spirometry data. Comparing the impact of targeting limited driving pressure to low tidal volume ventilation on mortality in mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 ARDS: an exploratory target trial emulation. Asthma control in severe asthma and occupational exposures to inhalable asthmagens. Impact of the number of dissected lymph nodes on machine learning-based prediction of postoperative lung cancer recurrence: a single-hospital retrospective cohort study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1