Rating# of item importance as a routine assessment tool in cough clinics¶
| Rating | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Cough severity numerical rating scale (e.g. 0–10, modified Borg scale or 0–100 visual analogue scale) | 0 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 22.6 | 71.7 |
| Cough-specific impact or QoL (e.g. LCQ or CQLQ) | 0 | 11.3 | 15.1 | 37.7 | 35.9 |
| Airway reflux questionnaire (e.g. HARQ) | 9.4 | 17.0 | 28.3 | 32.1 | 13.2 |
| Cough severity diary | 5.7 | 11.3 | 39.6 | 36.9 | 7.5 |
| Cough frequency (ambulatory cough monitoring) | 11.3 | 18.9 | 41.5 | 17.0 | 11.3 |
| General health QoL (e.g. EuroQoL or SF-36) | 17.0 | 30.2 | 43.4 | 5.6 | 3.8 |
Data are presented as response %. QoL: quality of life; LCQ: Leicester Cough Questionnaire; CQLQ: Cough-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire; HARQ: Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire; SF-36: 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. #: 5-point Likert scale (0–4), ranging from “not important at all” (0) to “neutral” (2) and “very important” (4); ¶: original question: Please rate the importance of each item as a routine assessment tool in cough clinics.