Editorial

Breaking the sound barrier pitfalls and benefits of acoustic cough monitoring

Lesley A. Houghton, Jaclyn A. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditionally push-button and symptom diaries have been used to document cough events, especially when examining temporal associations between cough and reflux events. More recently, acoustic devices have allowed more accurate recording of cough events, and compared with the latter traditional techniques reported 6-18 times more coughing. Whether the differences reported between these techniques represents disparities in subject groups or cough detection and quantification methods is unknown. In this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Kavitt et al. show that listeners of such recordings have a 4-fold increase in odds of recording cough events compared with patients using push-button techniques, and that even when using a 5-min window to assess temporal concordance/discordance, over 70% of coughs were not reported by the patients. These observations have potential significant implications when assessing temporal associations between cough and reflux, and thus any clinical decision making based on these data. This editorial examines both the findings of Kavitt et al. and discusses the pitfalls and benefits of validated accurate documentation of cough.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1833-1836
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume107
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Cough
Acoustics
Gastroenterology
Documentation
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Editorial : Breaking the sound barrier pitfalls and benefits of acoustic cough monitoring. / Houghton, Lesley A.; Smith, Jaclyn A.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 107, No. 12, 12.2012, p. 1833-1836.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Houghton, Lesley A. ; Smith, Jaclyn A. / Editorial : Breaking the sound barrier pitfalls and benefits of acoustic cough monitoring. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012 ; Vol. 107, No. 12. pp. 1833-1836.
@article{abe90cf9b9bb4dc29502aa5454d022a8,
title = "Editorial: Breaking the sound barrier pitfalls and benefits of acoustic cough monitoring",
abstract = "Traditionally push-button and symptom diaries have been used to document cough events, especially when examining temporal associations between cough and reflux events. More recently, acoustic devices have allowed more accurate recording of cough events, and compared with the latter traditional techniques reported 6-18 times more coughing. Whether the differences reported between these techniques represents disparities in subject groups or cough detection and quantification methods is unknown. In this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Kavitt et al. show that listeners of such recordings have a 4-fold increase in odds of recording cough events compared with patients using push-button techniques, and that even when using a 5-min window to assess temporal concordance/discordance, over 70{\%} of coughs were not reported by the patients. These observations have potential significant implications when assessing temporal associations between cough and reflux, and thus any clinical decision making based on these data. This editorial examines both the findings of Kavitt et al. and discusses the pitfalls and benefits of validated accurate documentation of cough.",
author = "Houghton, {Lesley A.} and Smith, {Jaclyn A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1038/ajg.2012.345",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "107",
pages = "1833--1836",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial

T2 - Breaking the sound barrier pitfalls and benefits of acoustic cough monitoring

AU - Houghton, Lesley A.

AU - Smith, Jaclyn A.

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Traditionally push-button and symptom diaries have been used to document cough events, especially when examining temporal associations between cough and reflux events. More recently, acoustic devices have allowed more accurate recording of cough events, and compared with the latter traditional techniques reported 6-18 times more coughing. Whether the differences reported between these techniques represents disparities in subject groups or cough detection and quantification methods is unknown. In this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Kavitt et al. show that listeners of such recordings have a 4-fold increase in odds of recording cough events compared with patients using push-button techniques, and that even when using a 5-min window to assess temporal concordance/discordance, over 70% of coughs were not reported by the patients. These observations have potential significant implications when assessing temporal associations between cough and reflux, and thus any clinical decision making based on these data. This editorial examines both the findings of Kavitt et al. and discusses the pitfalls and benefits of validated accurate documentation of cough.

AB - Traditionally push-button and symptom diaries have been used to document cough events, especially when examining temporal associations between cough and reflux events. More recently, acoustic devices have allowed more accurate recording of cough events, and compared with the latter traditional techniques reported 6-18 times more coughing. Whether the differences reported between these techniques represents disparities in subject groups or cough detection and quantification methods is unknown. In this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Kavitt et al. show that listeners of such recordings have a 4-fold increase in odds of recording cough events compared with patients using push-button techniques, and that even when using a 5-min window to assess temporal concordance/discordance, over 70% of coughs were not reported by the patients. These observations have potential significant implications when assessing temporal associations between cough and reflux, and thus any clinical decision making based on these data. This editorial examines both the findings of Kavitt et al. and discusses the pitfalls and benefits of validated accurate documentation of cough.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870791157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870791157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2012.345

DO - 10.1038/ajg.2012.345

M3 - Article

VL - 107

SP - 1833

EP - 1836

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 12

ER -