Korean version of the Cough Symptom Score: clinical utility and validity for chronic cough

Jae-Woo Kwon; Ji-Yong Moon; Sae-Hoon Kim; Woo-Jung Song; Min-Hye Kim; Min-Gyu Kang; Kyung-Hwan Lim; So-Hee Lee; Sang Min Lee; Jin Young Lee; Hyouk-Soo Kwon; Kyung-Mook Kim; Sang-Heon Kim; Sang-Hoon Kim; Jae-Won Jeong; Cheol-Woo Kim; Sang-Heon Cho; Byung-Jae Lee

doi:10.3904/kjim.2016.132

Korean J Intern Med > Volume 32(5); 2017 > Article

Kwon, Moon, Kim, Song, Kim, Kang, Lim, Lee, Lee, Lee, Kwon, Kim, Kim, Kim, Jeong, Kim, Cho, Lee, and Work Group for Chronic Cough, the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology: Korean version of the Cough Symptom Score: clinical utility and validity for chronic cough

Original Article

Allergy

Korean J Intern Med 2017;32(5):910-915.

Published online: March 31, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2016.132

Korean version of the Cough Symptom Score: clinical utility and validity for chronic cough

Jae-Woo Kwon¹, Ji-Yong Moon², Sae-Hoon Kim^3,⁴, Woo-Jung Song⁴, Min-Hye Kim⁵, Min-Gyu Kang⁴, Kyung-Hwan Lim⁶, So-Hee Lee⁴, Sang Min Lee⁷, Jin Young Lee⁸, Hyouk-Soo Kwon⁹, Kyung-Mook Kim¹⁰, Sang-Heon Kim², Sang-Hoon Kim¹¹, Jae-Won Jeong¹², Cheol-Woo Kim¹³, Sang-Heon Cho⁴, Byung-Jae Lee⁸; Work Group for Chronic Cough, the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Chuncheon, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Internal Medicine, The Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

⁷Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea

⁸Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁹Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹⁰Department of Internal Medicine, Pogunhan Mom Hospital, Seoul, Korea

¹¹Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji General Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹²Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea

¹³Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

Correspondence to Byung-Jae Lee, M.D. Division of Allergy, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea Tel: +82-2-3410-3427 Fax: +82-2-3410-3849 E-mail: leebj@skku.edu

Received April 25, 2016 Revised December 20, 2016 Accepted December 22, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims

The Cough Symptom Score (CSS) is a simple, useful tool for measuring cough severity. However, there is no standard Korean version of the CSS. We developed a Korean version of the CSS and evaluated its clinical utility and validity for assessing chronic cough severity.

Methods

The CSS was adapted for Korean use following a forward-backward translation procedure. Patients with chronic cough enrolled from five university hospitals were graded using the CSS and a 100-mm linear visual analog scale (VAS) of cough severity at each visit. Patients completed the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) upon presentation and completed the LCQ and Global Rating of Change at follow-up visits after 2 to 4 weeks. The concurrent validity, repeatability, and responsiveness of the Korean version of the CSS were determined.

Results

Correlation coefficients between the CSS and LCQ, and between the CSS and VAS, were –0.66 and 0.52, respectively. There was a weak correlation between the scores for night and day symptoms (r = 0.24, p = 0.0006). The repeatability of the CSS in patients with no change in cough (n = 23) was high (intra-class correlation coefficient, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.88). Patients who reported an improvement in cough (n = 30) at follow-up visits had a significant improvement in the CSS (median, –2; 95% CI, –3 to –1; p = 0.0003).

Conclusions

The Korean version of the CSS correlated well with other tools for accessing cough severity in chronic cough patients. Therefore, it could be a reliable method for measuring chronic cough severity.

Keywords: Cough; Surveys and questionnaires; Chronic disease; Korean version of the Cough Symptom Score

INTRODUCTION

Cough is a common problem for which medical attention is sought. A way to assess cough severity or the effectiveness of cough management is needed, especially for chronic cough, defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks [1,2]. Outcomes often measured to assess cough include one or more of the following: cough severity, cough impact on quality of life, cough frequency, or cough sensitivity. However, these assessments are not based on standardized or valid measures [3]. Because there is limited and insufficient evidence of the reliability or concurrent validity of the different types of cough diaries and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines suggested that cough-specific questionnaires, a VAS, or numeric rating scales should be used in a standard fashion [3-5]. The Cough Symptom Score (CSS) consists of two questions about the subjective recognition of cough frequency in the day and at night. The CSS is a subjective, self-completed questionnaire used to measure cough that has been used widely in many studies of cough [6-10]. It is simple and short, and seems to be more practical than cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaires in clinical practice. However, the CSS has not been validated for use among the Korean population.

This study developed a Korean version of the CSS and compared its relationship with clinical parameters, as well as VAS or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores, to determine its reliability, validity, and responsiveness for assessing chronic cough [7,11-13].

METHODS

Subjects

We enrolled patients with chronic cough from five university hospitals (Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, and Kangwon National University Hospital) between May 2011 and October 2013 [13]. Chronic cough was defined as a cough lasting for more than 8 weeks. Patients aged < 15 or ≥ 70 years were excluded. Patients were graded using the CSS, LCQ, and a 100-mm linear VAS of cough severity (ranging from “no cough” to “worst cough”) at enrollment and follow-up visits after 2 to 4 weeks. The Global Rating of Change (GRC) was completed only at the follow-up visits after 2 to 4 weeks. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each participating hospital, and informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Cough Symptom Score

The CSS, which was proposed by Hsu et al. [8], and consists of two questions regarding subjective cough severity during the day and in the evening, has been used widely in many studies to assess cough frequency and severity, since there are no standard objective methods to measure cough frequency [8-10]. The scores for each question range from 0 to 5, and so the CSS total score ranges from 0 (no cough at all) to 10 (most severe cough). The CSS was adapted for Korean populations following a forward-backward translation procedure, with independent translations and counter-translations. The suitability of the wording and phrasing of the Korean version of the CSS was tested in three patients with coughs.

Leicester Cough Questionnaire

The LCQ is a cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaire containing 19 items that are divided into physical, psychological, and social domains [13]. A 7-point Likert scale is used to evaluate responses to each item, and the domain scores range from 1 to 7. The total score ranges from 3 to 21; a higher score indicates a better quality of life.

Global Rating of Change

The GRC assessment was performed to evaluate self-perceived changes in disease status since the first visit. Scores range from 7 (a great deal better) to –7 (a great deal worse) and status is classified as unchanged (–1, 0, 1), small change (–3, –2, 2, 3), moderate change (–5, –4, 5, 4), and large change (–7, –6, 7, 6) [14]. Scores of 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered to represent a clinically significant improvement [15].

Validation

Concurrent validity indexes the validity of an instrument against other standards; this was assessed by correlating the CSS with LCQ and VAS scores. A correlation coefficient ≥ 0.4 is generally regarded as a moderate correlation, while correlations > 0.75 are considered as strong correlations. The relationship between the two questions regarding subjective cough severity, both during the day and in the evening, was assessed for internal consistency using Spearman correlation coefficient. The repeatability of the CSS was assessed in patients indicating no change (–1, 0, 1) in the GRC at follow-up visits over 2 to 4 weeks. Assuming no difference in the average score between the test and retest, and that the standard deviation of the total score was identical at each time point, 14 patients were required with 0.75 as the lower limit for high agreement with a 95% confidence interval (CI), in the expectation of a 0.9 intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) [16]. An ICC ≥ 0.4 is generally regarded as a moderate correlation and an ICC > 0.75 denotes a strong correlation. The responsiveness of the CSS was assessed in those patients indicating clinical improvements (4, 5, 6, and 7) in the GRC upon follow-up visits after 2 to 4 weeks.

Statistical analysis

Patient characteristics are presented as mean ± SD for continuous variables and as relative frequencies for categorical variables. Each symptom score during the day and at night are shown as mean ± SD are scores are compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Spearman correlation coefficients between the CSS and LCQ scores were calculated to assess concurrent validity, since the CSS and two of the three LCQ domains did not follow a normal distribution. Internal consistency was evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficient between the two questions in the CSS. Repeatability was assessed by calculating the ICCs. Responsiveness was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare CSS at baseline and after clinical improvement, since the CSS data did not follow a normal distribution. The statistical analysis was performed using SAS software version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 207 patients with chronic cough and their characteristics are shown in Table 1 [13].

The correlation coefficients of concurrent validity, determined in 202 patients, are shown in Table 2. The correlation coefficients between the CSS and LCQ ranged between –0.66 and –0.60. The CSS was also well correlated with VAS scores (r = 0.52, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 1). The scores for daytime symptoms were more closely related to LCQ quality of social life than were the scores for nighttime symptoms (r = –0.543, p < 0.0001 vs. r = –0.441, p < 0.0001). The scores for nighttime symptoms were more closely related to LCQ physical and psychological quality of life than were the scores of daytime symptoms (r = –0.557, p < 0.0001 vs. r = –0.416, p < 0.0001; r = –0.481, p < 0.0001 vs. r = –0.470, p < 0.0001, respectively).

The internal consistency of the CSS (n = 207), given by Spearman correlation coefficient between the night and daytime symptom scores, was 0.24 (p = 0.0006) (Fig. 2). Symptom scores during the day were higher than those during the night (3.06 ± 1.13 vs. 1.80 ± 1.14, p < 0.0001).

The repeatability of the CSS in patients with no change in cough status (n = 23) was high (ICC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88). Patients who reported an improvement in cough (n = 30) at follow-up also had a significant improvement in the CSS (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

The Korean version of the CSS correlated well with patients’ perceptions, as shown by VAS and cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaire scores. The Korean version of the CSS appears to have acceptable repeatability and responsiveness to change.

Evaluating the severity of chronic cough is important for both research and clinical practice, because the accuracy of the diagnosis is given by the response to specific treatment in most cases [11]. However, evaluation of cough using validated methods remains challenging for both clinicians and researchers [6]. To evaluate the efficacy of cough-modifying agents optimally, investigators are recommended to use both subjective and objective method because they have the potential to measure different things [7]. Therefore, cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, such as the LCQ, are usually recommended for assessing cough severity [6,10], because these questionnaires have been widely used, show repeatability and responsiveness, and correlate with cough frequency in chronic cough [9-13,17]. However cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaires take a relatively long time to complete and their use is not convenient in daily practice. Although a VAS is very convenient and easy to use, the correlations between VAS and objective cough measurements or quality-of-life scores are inconsistent [6]. In comparison, the CSS is a simple tool for scoring subjectively experienced cough frequency and there are several different forms of the instrument [7,8,16,18]. And thus, a standard Korean version of the CSS is needed. Several studies have shown moderate correlations between objective cough frequency and CSS [8-10], but no studies have examined the correlations between CSS and LCQ or VAS scores.

The demographic characteristics of the study population were similar to those in a previous report on Korean patients with chronic cough, in which middle-aged women were predominant [19]. There were differences in the subjective cough frequency between daytime and nighttime in this study, although there was a weak correlation. This suggests that there are diurnal changes in cough severity in many patients with chronic cough. This is consistent with the results of several previous reports on patients with chronic cough, which showed that the daytime CSS was higher than nighttime scores, and cough frequency indexed by objective cough monitoring was also higher during the daytime [9,10]. Using an objective cough measurement, Marsden et al. [10] showed that coughing rates during the day and at night were different in asthmatic patients and showed a moderate correlation. In addition, the current study showed that nighttime subjective cough frequency was related more to the psychological aspects of quality of life, while the daytime subjective cough frequency was related more to the social aspects of quality of life.

In conclusion, we developed a Korean version of the CSS, which correlated well with VAS and LCQ scores in patients with chronic cough. This study suggests that the Korean version of the CSS could be used to evaluate the results of interventions for the management of chronic cough, and is a useful parameter for evaluating chronic cough in the clinic and for research purposes.

KEY MESSAGE

1. We developed a Korean version of the Cough Symptom Score (CCS) and examined its clinical utility.

2. The Korean version of the CSS correlated well with scores on a cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaire and a visual analog scale used to access chronic cough severity.

3. The Korean version of the CSS showed acceptable repeatability and responsiveness to change in patients with chronic cough.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figure 1.

Relationship between the Cough Symptom Score (CSS) and (A) Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores and (B) visual analog scale.

Figure 2.

Distribution of daytime and nighttime Cough Symptom Score cough frequency scores. The color and number in each square indicate the number of patients. Spearman correlation coefficient between nighttime and daytime symptom scores was 0.24 (p = 0.0006).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics (n = 207)

Characteristic	Value
Female sex	126 (61)
Age, yr	48.5 ± 13.8
Current smoker	35 (16.9)
Duration of cough, yr	1 (0.17–45)
Leicester Cough Questionnaire
Physical	4.3 ± 1.1
Psychological	3.7 ± 1.2
Social	4.0 ± 1.4
Total	12.1 ± 3.3
Cough Symptom Score	4.9 ± 1.8
Visual analog scale	5.5 ± 2.6

Values are presented as number (%), mean ± SD, or median (range).

Table 2.

Concurrent validity of the CSS, LCQ, and VAS

Variable	CSS	p value
LCQ
Physical	–0.61	< 0.0001
Psychological	–0.60	< 0.0001
Social	–0.61	< 0.0001
Total	–0.66	< 0.0001
VAS	0.52	< 0.0001

Spearman correlation coefficients.

CSS, Cough Symptom Score; LCQ, Leicester Cough Questionnaire; VAS, visual analog scale.

Table 3.

Responsiveness to clinical improvement in cough patients (n = 30)

Variable	Improvement score	95% CI	p value
Leicester Cough Questionnaire^a
Physical	0.92	0.44 to 1.39	0.0005
Psychological	1.29	0.64 to 1.93	0.0004
Social	1.17	0.57 to 1.77	0.0005
Total	3.37	1.71 to 5.03	0.0003
Cough Symptom Score^b	–2	–3 to –1	0.0003

CI, confidence interval.

^a Paired t test.

^b Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

REFERENCES

1. Pratter MR, Brightling CE, Boulet LP, Irwin RS. An empiric integrative approach to the management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2006;129(1 Suppl):222S–231S.

2. Song WJ, Chang YS, Faruqi S, et al. Defining chronic cough: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2016;8:146–155.

3. Boulet LP, Coeytaux RR, McCrory DC, et al. Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2015;147:804–814.

4. Schmit KM, Coeytaux RR, Goode AP, et al. Evaluating cough assessment tools: a systematic review. Chest 2013;144:1819–1826.

5. Cho YS. Is your cough getting better? Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2015;7:203–204.

6. Leconte S, Ferrant D, Dory V, Degryse J. Validated methods of cough assessment: a systematic review of the literature. Respiration 2011;81:161–174.

7. Irwin RS. Assessing cough severity and efficacy of therapy in clinical research: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2006;129(1 Suppl):232S–237S.

8. Hsu JY, Stone RA, Logan-Sinclair RB, Worsdell M, Busst CM, Chung KF. Coughing frequency in patients with persistent cough: assessment using a 24 hour ambulatory recorder. Eur Respir J 1994;7:1246–1253.

9. Decalmer SC, Webster D, Kelsall AA, McGuinness K, Woodcock AA, Smith JA. Chronic cough: how do cough reflex sensitivity and subjective assessments correlate with objective cough counts during ambulatory monitoring? Thorax 2007;62:329–334.

10. Marsden PA, Smith JA, Kelsall AA, et al. A comparison of objective and subjective measures of cough in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;122:903–907.

11. Morice AH, Fontana GA, Belvisi MG, et al. ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough. Eur Respir J 2007;29:1256–1276.

12. Birring SS, Prudon B, Carr AJ, Singh SJ, Morgan MD, Pavord ID. Development of a symptom specific health status measure for patients with chronic cough: Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Thorax 2003;58:339–343.

13. Kwon JW, Moon JY, Kim SH, et al. Reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2015;7:230–233.

14. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81–87.

15. Kocks JW, Tuinenga MG, Uil SM, van den Berg JW, Stahl E, van der Molen T. Health status measurement in COPD: the minimal clinically important difference of the clinical COPD questionnaire. Respir Res 2006;7:62.

16. Huisman AN, Wu MZ, Uil SM, van den Berg JW. Reliability and validity of a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. Cough 2007;3:3.

17. Birring SS, Matos S, Patel RB, Prudon B, Evans DH, Pavord ID. Cough frequency, cough sensitivity and health status in patients with chronic cough. Respir Med 2006;100:1105–1109.

18. Pratter MR, Bartter T, Akers S, DuBois J. An algorithmic approach to chronic cough. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:977–983.

19. Morice AH, Jakes AD, Faruqi S, et al. A worldwide survey of chronic cough: a manifestation of enhanced somatosensory response. Eur Respir J 2014;44:1149–1155.