Leicester Cough Questionnaire: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) is an English-born self-reporting quality of life measure of chronic cough, developed by S.S. Birring<ref>Birring, | Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) is an English-born self-reporting quality of life measure of chronic cough, developed by S.S. Birring<ref name=":3">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(4): 339-343.</ref>. It consists of 19 items with a 7 point likert response scale (range from 1 to 7), a format example is available [http://www.heartofengland.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/cough_questionnaire.pdf here]. Each item is developed to assess symptoms during cough and impact of cough on three main domains: physical, psychological and social. Scores are calculated as a mean of each domain and the total score is calculated by adding every domain score. It generally takes about 5 minutes to be completed and it is designed for adults. Since the first development in 2003 LCQ has been translated and validated in several languages (Dutch<ref name=":4">Huisman AN, Wu MZ, Uil SM, van den Berg JWK. Reliability and validity of a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. Cough. 2007; 3(1): 3. doi: 10.1186/1745-9974-3-3</ref>, French<ref name=":0">Reychler G, Schinckus M, Fremault A, Liistro G, Pieters T. Validation of the French version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic respiratory disease. 2015; 12(4): 313-319. | ||
</ref>, Korean<ref>Kwon, | </ref>, Korean<ref name=":5">Kwon JW, Moon JM, Kim SH, Song WJ, Kim MH, Kang MG, et al. Reliability and validity of a Korean version of the leicester cough questionnaire. Allergy, asthma & immunology research. 2015; 7(3): 230-233. | ||
</ref>, Lithuanian<ref>Merkytė, | </ref>, Lithuanian<ref name=":6">Merkytė I, Biekšienė K, Vagulienė N, Sakalauskas R. Reliability and Validity of a Lithuanian version of Leicester Cough Questionnaire. J Lung Pulm Respir Res. 2016; 3(5): 00099.</ref>, Mandarin Chinese<ref name=":1">Gao YH, Guan WH, Xu G, Gao Y, Lin ZY, Tang Y, et al. Validation of the Mandarin Chinese version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in bronchiectasis. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2014; 18(12): 1431-1437.</ref>, Polish<ref name=":7">Dąbrowska M, Krakowiak K, Radlińska O, Rybka A, Grabczak EM, Maskey-Warzęchowska M, et al.Validation of the Polish Version of the Chronic Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire (Leicester Cough Questionnaire). Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine: Official Organ Wroclaw Medical University. 2016;25(4):649-653 | ||
</ref>, Portuguese<ref>Felisbino MB, Marques Steidle LJ, Gonçalves-Tavares M, Pizzichini MMM, Pizzichini E. Leicester Cough Questionnaire: translation to Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil. ''Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia.'' 2014; 40(3): 213-221.</ref>, Spanish<ref name=":8">Muñoz G, Buxó M, de Gracia J, Olveira C, Martinez-Garcia MA, Giron R, et al. Validation of a Spanish version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Chronic respiratory disease. 2016; 128–136. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1177/1479972316632005</nowiki></ref>, Swedish<ref name=":2">Sönnerfors P, Faager G, Einarsson U. Translation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire into Swedish, and validity and reliability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Disability and rehabilitation. 2017; 40(22): 2662-2670</ref>, Thai<ref name=":9">Pornsuriyasak P, Kawamatawong T, Rattanasiri S, Tantrakul V, Pongmesa T, Birring SS, et al. Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the leicester cough questionnaire in chronic cough. Asian Pacific journal of allergy and immunology. 2016; 34(3):212-216 DOI: 10.12932/AP0685.34.3.2016</ref>). LCQ has been used as an outcome measure for different respiratory diseases like [[COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)|COPD]]<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2" /><ref>Berkhof FF, Boom LN, ten Hertog NE, Uil SM, Kerstjens HA, van den Berg JW. The validity and precision of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in COPD patients with chronic cough. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2012; 10(1): 4. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-4</ref>, [[Cystic Fibrosis]]<ref>Ward N, Stiller K. Rowe H, Holland AE. The psychometric properties of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and Respiratory Symptoms in CF tool in cystic fibrosis: A preliminary study. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. 2017; 16(3): 425-432. DOI: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2016.11.011</nowiki></ref>, non-CF [[bronchiectasis]]<ref name=":1" /><ref>Murray MP, Turnbull K, MacQuarrie S, Pentland JL, Hill AT. Validation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. European Respiratory Journal. 34(1): 125-131.</ref>. | |||
== Objective == | == Objective == | ||
This instrument has been developed to detect the effect of chronic cough on health status and consequently on quality of life of chronic respiratory | This instrument has been developed to detect the effect of chronic cough on health status and consequently on [[Quality of Life|quality of life]] of [[Chronic Disease|chronic respiratory disease]] patients. Patients are asked 19 questions reflecting on their cough over the previous two weeks including areas of; chest or stomach pain, sputum, embarrassment, anxiety, sleep disruption and energy. | ||
== Clinimetric properties of LCQ == | == Clinimetric properties of LCQ == | ||
The LCQ has been shown to be a valid and reliable health status measure for adults with [[Chronic Bronchitis|chronic cough]]<ref name=":3" />. Concurrent validity measures how much a test correlates well with another measure that has previously been validated. | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
!Concurrent Validity | !Concurrent Validity | ||
!English Vers. | !English Vers.<ref name=":3" /> | ||
!Dutch Vers. | !Dutch Vers.<ref name=":4" /> | ||
!Mandarin Vers. | !Mandarin Vers.<ref name=":1" /> | ||
!Korean Vers. | !Korean Vers.<ref name=":5" /> | ||
!French Vers. | !French Vers.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
!Thai Vers. | !Thai Vers.<ref name=":9" /> | ||
!Spanish Vers. | !Spanish Vers.<ref name=":8" /> | ||
!Swedish Vers. | !Swedish Vers.<ref name=":2" /> | ||
!Polish Vers. | !Polish Vers.<ref name=":7" /> | ||
!Lithuanian Vers. | !Lithuanian Vers.<ref name=":6" /> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Cough VAS | |Cough VAS | ||
| Line 132: | Line 133: | ||
| | | | ||
|} | |} | ||
SGRQ: Saint George respiratory Questionnaire; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; SF-36: Short Form-36; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; CASA-Q: Cough and Sputum Assessment ''Questionnaire; CAT: COPD'' Assessment Test; EQ5D: EuroQol five-dimensional ''Questionnaire; u.v.: unreported value by authors because non significant'' | SGRQ: Saint George respiratory Questionnaire; [[Visual Analogue Scale|VAS]]: Visual Analogue Scale; SF-36: Short Form-36; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; CASA-Q: Cough and Sputum Assessment ''Questionnaire; CAT: COPD'' Assessment Test; EQ5D: EuroQol five-dimensional ''Questionnaire; u.v.: unreported value by authors because non significant'' | ||
All data are expressed as r-correlation coefficient between total scores of each instruments listed and are all statistically significant unless specified. | All data are expressed as r-correlation coefficient between total scores of each instruments listed and are all statistically significant unless specified. | ||
| Line 141: | Line 142: | ||
!Intraclass Correlation Coefficient | !Intraclass Correlation Coefficient | ||
|- | |- | ||
|English Version | |English Version<ref name=":3" /> | ||
|0.96 | |0.96 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Dutch Version | |Dutch Version<ref name=":4" /> | ||
|0.93 | |0.93 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Mandarin Chinese Version | |Mandarin Chinese Version<ref name=":1" /> | ||
|0.89 | |0.89 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Korean Version | |Korean Version<ref name=":5" /> | ||
|0.75 | |0.75 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|French Version | |French Version<ref name=":0" /> | ||
|0.85 | |0.85 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Thai Version | |Thai Version<ref name=":9" /> | ||
|0.91 | |0.91 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Spanish Version | |Spanish Version<ref name=":8" /> | ||
|0.84 | |0.84 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Swedish version | |Swedish version<ref name=":2" /> | ||
|0.96 | |0.96 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Polish Version | |Polish Version<ref name=":7" /> | ||
|0.99 | |0.99 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Lithuanian Version | |Lithuanian Version<ref name=":6" /> | ||
|0.89 | |0.89 | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 179: | Line 180: | ||
coefficient | coefficient | ||
|- | |- | ||
|English Version | |English Version<ref name=":3" /> | ||
|0.92 | |0.92 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Dutch Version | |Dutch Version<ref name=":4" /> | ||
|0.93 | |0.93 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Mandarin Chinese Version | |Mandarin Chinese Version<ref name=":1" /> | ||
|0.93 | |0.93 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Korean Version | |Korean Version<ref name=":5" /> | ||
|0.94 | |0.94 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|French Version | |French Version<ref name=":0" /> | ||
|0.92 | |0.92 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Thai Version | |Thai Version<ref name=":9" /> | ||
|0.92 | |0.92 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Spanish Version | |Spanish Version<ref name=":8" /> | ||
|0.91 | |0.91 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Swedish version | |Swedish version<ref name=":2" /> | ||
|0.97 | |0.97 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Polish Version | |Polish Version<ref name=":7" /> | ||
|0.89 | |0.89 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Lithuanian Version | |Lithuanian Version<ref name=":6" /> | ||
|0.93 | |0.93 | ||
|} | |} | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
[[Category:Respiratory]] | |||
[[Category:Assessment]] | |||
[[Category:Cardiopulmonary]] | |||
<references /> | |||
[[Category:Cardiopulmonary - Outcome Measures]] | |||
Latest revision as of 10:17, 23 February 2020
Original Editor - Riccardo Guarise Top Contributors - Riccardo Guarise, Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka, Adam Vallely Farrell and Kim Jackson
Introduction[edit | edit source]
Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) is an English-born self-reporting quality of life measure of chronic cough, developed by S.S. Birring[1]. It consists of 19 items with a 7 point likert response scale (range from 1 to 7), a format example is available here. Each item is developed to assess symptoms during cough and impact of cough on three main domains: physical, psychological and social. Scores are calculated as a mean of each domain and the total score is calculated by adding every domain score. It generally takes about 5 minutes to be completed and it is designed for adults. Since the first development in 2003 LCQ has been translated and validated in several languages (Dutch[2], French[3], Korean[4], Lithuanian[5], Mandarin Chinese[6], Polish[7], Portuguese[8], Spanish[9], Swedish[10], Thai[11]). LCQ has been used as an outcome measure for different respiratory diseases like COPD[3][10][12], Cystic Fibrosis[13], non-CF bronchiectasis[6][14].
Objective[edit | edit source]
This instrument has been developed to detect the effect of chronic cough on health status and consequently on quality of life of chronic respiratory disease patients. Patients are asked 19 questions reflecting on their cough over the previous two weeks including areas of; chest or stomach pain, sputum, embarrassment, anxiety, sleep disruption and energy.
Clinimetric properties of LCQ[edit | edit source]
The LCQ has been shown to be a valid and reliable health status measure for adults with chronic cough[1]. Concurrent validity measures how much a test correlates well with another measure that has previously been validated.
| Concurrent Validity | English Vers.[1] | Dutch Vers.[2] | Mandarin Vers.[6] | Korean Vers.[4] | French Vers.[3] | Thai Vers.[11] | Spanish Vers.[9] | Swedish Vers.[10] | Polish Vers.[7] | Lithuanian Vers.[5] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cough VAS | -0.72 | -0.58 | -0.39 | 0.40 | ||||||
| SGRQ - total | -0.56 | -0.60 | -0.66 | -0.55 | -0.49 | |||||
| SF36 – total | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.55 | 0.33 | ||||||
| Borg Cough Scale | -0.41 | -0.74 | ||||||||
| HADS - total | -0.46 | -0.36 | u.v. | |||||||
| Cough symptom score | -0.66 | |||||||||
| CASA-Q | 0.58-0.81 | |||||||||
| CAT | -0.69 | |||||||||
| EQ5D | -0.59 |
SGRQ: Saint George respiratory Questionnaire; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; SF-36: Short Form-36; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; CASA-Q: Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire; CAT: COPD Assessment Test; EQ5D: EuroQol five-dimensional Questionnaire; u.v.: unreported value by authors because non significant
All data are expressed as r-correlation coefficient between total scores of each instruments listed and are all statistically significant unless specified.
Repeatability or test–retest reliability reflects the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same "test" or "instrument" that occurs under the same conditions of the previous measurement
| Repeatability | Intraclass Correlation Coefficient |
|---|---|
| English Version[1] | 0.96 |
| Dutch Version[2] | 0.93 |
| Mandarin Chinese Version[6] | 0.89 |
| Korean Version[4] | 0.75 |
| French Version[3] | 0.85 |
| Thai Version[11] | 0.91 |
| Spanish Version[9] | 0.84 |
| Swedish version[10] | 0.96 |
| Polish Version[7] | 0.99 |
| Lithuanian Version[5] | 0.89 |
| Internal consistency and Reliability | Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient |
|---|---|
| English Version[1] | 0.92 |
| Dutch Version[2] | 0.93 |
| Mandarin Chinese Version[6] | 0.93 |
| Korean Version[4] | 0.94 |
| French Version[3] | 0.92 |
| Thai Version[11] | 0.92 |
| Spanish Version[9] | 0.91 |
| Swedish version[10] | 0.97 |
| Polish Version[7] | 0.89 |
| Lithuanian Version[5] | 0.93 |
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 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(4): 339-343.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Huisman AN, Wu MZ, Uil SM, van den Berg JWK. Reliability and validity of a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. Cough. 2007; 3(1): 3. doi: 10.1186/1745-9974-3-3
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Reychler G, Schinckus M, Fremault A, Liistro G, Pieters T. Validation of the French version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic respiratory disease. 2015; 12(4): 313-319.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Kwon JW, Moon JM, Kim SH, Song WJ, Kim MH, Kang MG, et al. Reliability and validity of a Korean version of the leicester cough questionnaire. Allergy, asthma & immunology research. 2015; 7(3): 230-233.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Merkytė I, Biekšienė K, Vagulienė N, Sakalauskas R. Reliability and Validity of a Lithuanian version of Leicester Cough Questionnaire. J Lung Pulm Respir Res. 2016; 3(5): 00099.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Gao YH, Guan WH, Xu G, Gao Y, Lin ZY, Tang Y, et al. Validation of the Mandarin Chinese version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in bronchiectasis. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2014; 18(12): 1431-1437.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Dąbrowska M, Krakowiak K, Radlińska O, Rybka A, Grabczak EM, Maskey-Warzęchowska M, et al.Validation of the Polish Version of the Chronic Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire (Leicester Cough Questionnaire). Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine: Official Organ Wroclaw Medical University. 2016;25(4):649-653
- ↑ Felisbino MB, Marques Steidle LJ, Gonçalves-Tavares M, Pizzichini MMM, Pizzichini E. Leicester Cough Questionnaire: translation to Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia. 2014; 40(3): 213-221.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Muñoz G, Buxó M, de Gracia J, Olveira C, Martinez-Garcia MA, Giron R, et al. Validation of a Spanish version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Chronic respiratory disease. 2016; 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1479972316632005
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Sönnerfors P, Faager G, Einarsson U. Translation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire into Swedish, and validity and reliability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Disability and rehabilitation. 2017; 40(22): 2662-2670
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Pornsuriyasak P, Kawamatawong T, Rattanasiri S, Tantrakul V, Pongmesa T, Birring SS, et al. Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the leicester cough questionnaire in chronic cough. Asian Pacific journal of allergy and immunology. 2016; 34(3):212-216 DOI: 10.12932/AP0685.34.3.2016
- ↑ Berkhof FF, Boom LN, ten Hertog NE, Uil SM, Kerstjens HA, van den Berg JW. The validity and precision of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in COPD patients with chronic cough. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2012; 10(1): 4. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-4
- ↑ Ward N, Stiller K. Rowe H, Holland AE. The psychometric properties of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and Respiratory Symptoms in CF tool in cystic fibrosis: A preliminary study. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. 2017; 16(3): 425-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2016.11.011
- ↑ Murray MP, Turnbull K, MacQuarrie S, Pentland JL, Hill AT. Validation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. European Respiratory Journal. 34(1): 125-131.
