We have located links that may give you full text access.
Cough frequency monitors: can they discriminate patient from environmental coughs?
Journal of Thoracic Disease 2016 November
BACKGROUND: Objective cough frequency measurements are increasingly applied in clinical research. Technological advances enable automated detection and counting of cough events from sound recordings of many hours' duration. A possible limitation of sound-based cough frequency measurement is the contamination of recordings by environmental coughs (coughs from persons other than the patient). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of a sound-based cough monitor for detecting and discriminating patient cough from environmental cough.
METHODS: As part of a stroke trial (ISRCTN40298220), patients on a hospital ward underwent 15-minute recordings using the Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM), a sound-based cough monitor ('semi-automated counts'). Participants and other persons in the environment were prompted to cough. An observer present in the room recorded the number of patient and environmental coughs ('live counts'). LCM counts were also compared against a manual cough count, the most commonly used gold standard to determine accuracy ('manual sound counts' from listening to recordings), by a blinded assessor who cross-referenced timed cough events from the respective methods. Data for automated, manual and live cough counts were analyzed using agreement statistics.
RESULTS: On sound recordings from five patients, there were 65 patient coughs and 78 environmental coughs (manual counts). Absolute agreement for patient cough count between all three measurement methods (LCM automated, live, and manual sound counts) was high, with intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.94 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.74, 0.99]. The proportion of exact agreements for patient cough between LCM and manual count was 0.92, and kappa was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). The LCM showed sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.96), positive predictive value of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.95) and negative predictive value of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.98) for detecting patient coughs.
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study supports the validity of the cough monitor for detecting and discriminating patient from environmental cough. Further validation is recommended, to describe the level of accuracy with greater precision.
METHODS: As part of a stroke trial (ISRCTN40298220), patients on a hospital ward underwent 15-minute recordings using the Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM), a sound-based cough monitor ('semi-automated counts'). Participants and other persons in the environment were prompted to cough. An observer present in the room recorded the number of patient and environmental coughs ('live counts'). LCM counts were also compared against a manual cough count, the most commonly used gold standard to determine accuracy ('manual sound counts' from listening to recordings), by a blinded assessor who cross-referenced timed cough events from the respective methods. Data for automated, manual and live cough counts were analyzed using agreement statistics.
RESULTS: On sound recordings from five patients, there were 65 patient coughs and 78 environmental coughs (manual counts). Absolute agreement for patient cough count between all three measurement methods (LCM automated, live, and manual sound counts) was high, with intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.94 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.74, 0.99]. The proportion of exact agreements for patient cough between LCM and manual count was 0.92, and kappa was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). The LCM showed sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.96), positive predictive value of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.95) and negative predictive value of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.98) for detecting patient coughs.
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study supports the validity of the cough monitor for detecting and discriminating patient from environmental cough. Further validation is recommended, to describe the level of accuracy with greater precision.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app