Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Doctor of Physical Therapy Division, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Chest. 2013 Dec;144(6):1819-1826. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-0310.
Little is known about the comparative validity, reliability, or responsiveness of instruments for assessing cough frequency or impact, where the term impact encompasses both cough severity and the impact of cough on health-related quality of life.
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate instruments that assess cough frequency or impact in adults, adolescents, and children with acute or chronic cough.
Seventy-eight studies were included, of which eight were randomized controlled trials and 70 were observational studies. In all age groups, audio and video electronic recording devices had good reliability compared with other methods of assessing cough frequency but had variable correlation with other cough assessments, such as visual analog scale scores, quality-of-life questionnaires, cough diaries, and tussigenic challenges. Among adult and adolescent patients, the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CQLQ) were valid and reliable, showing high intraclass and test-retest correlations. Among children, the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and Pediatric Cough Questionnaire were valid and reliable.
Electronic recording devices can be valid assessments of cough frequency. The LCQ and CQLQ for adults and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire for children are valid instruments for assessing cough impact. There is limited but insufficient evidence to determine the reliability or concurrent validity of the different types of cough diaries or visual analog scale scores. There are also limited data to support the responsiveness of recording devices. There is good responsiveness data for the LCQ and CQLQ, but more evidence is needed.
对于评估咳嗽频率或影响的工具的比较有效性、可靠性或反应性知之甚少,其中影响包括咳嗽严重程度和咳嗽对健康相关生活质量的影响。
我们进行了一项系统评价,以评估评估急性或慢性咳嗽的成人、青少年和儿童咳嗽频率或影响的工具。
共纳入 78 项研究,其中 8 项为随机对照试验,70 项为观察性研究。在所有年龄组中,音频和视频电子记录设备与评估咳嗽频率的其他方法相比具有良好的可靠性,但与其他咳嗽评估方法(如视觉模拟评分、生活质量问卷、咳嗽日记和激发试验)的相关性不同。在成年和青少年患者中,莱斯特咳嗽问卷(LCQ)和咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷(CQLQ)是有效且可靠的,具有较高的组内和重测相关性。在儿童中,父母咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷和儿科咳嗽问卷是有效且可靠的。
电子记录设备可以有效评估咳嗽频率。LCQ 和 CQLQ 用于成人,父母咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷用于儿童,是评估咳嗽影响的有效工具。不同类型的咳嗽日记或视觉模拟评分的可靠性或同时有效性的证据有限且不足。记录设备的反应性也存在数据限制。LCQ 和 CQLQ 的反应性数据良好,但需要更多证据。