Patient-reported outcome measures for cough used in interstitial lung disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Validated and reliable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended to assess the severity and impact of cough in interstitial lung disease (ILD). We systematically reviewed the literature to identify PROMs for cough in ILD, examining their psychometric properties. METHODS: We searched four databases from inception to 10 January 2025. English-language original articles that described the use of a PROM to measure cough in adults with ILD and addressed the psychometric properties, method of administration or results of usability testing were selected. RESULTS: 21 PROMs were evaluated in 35 studies, including 14 in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and seven in other ILDs, eight cough-specific PROMs, and 13 disease-specific PROMs with a domain for cough. No tool had sufficient evidence for more than 5/7 of the psychometric properties evaluated. There was evidence for content validity for four PROMs in IPF (A Tool to Assess Quality of Life in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (ATAQ-IPF), the Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire (CASA-Q), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS™:COPD) and the Living with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Questionnaire (L-IPF)). Only one study evaluated convergent validity using objective cough monitoring, demonstrating high validity for the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) (r=-0.74- -0.80) and cough visual analogue scale (VAS) (r=0.80). Acceptable internal consistency (α>0.7) was demonstrated for 10 PROMs (ATAQ-IPF, the Cross-Atlantic modification of ATAQ-IPF, the Chinese version of ATAQ-IPF, CASA-Q, E-RS™:COPD, LCQ, L-IPF, the IPF-specific version of St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the modified version of the Edmonton System Assessment System and SGRQ). The cough VAS demonstrated good predictive validity and L-IPF was responsive to ILD-specific therapies, with effect sizes ranging from 0.32 to 0.44. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting the measurement properties of available PROMs for cough in ILD is limited. Further validation of existing instruments and the development of new disease-specific PROMs are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".