Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 24;19(7):e0303804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303804

Characteristics, demographics, and epidemiology of possible chronic cough in Sweden: A nationwide register-based cohort study

Lotta Walz 1,*, Kristoffer Illergård 2, Johannes Arpegård 2, Cristian Dorbesi 2, Henrik Johansson 3,4, Össur Ingi Emilsson 5,6
Editor: Sherief Ghozy7
PMCID: PMC11268580  PMID: 39047005

Abstract

Aim

To show clinical characteristics, treatments, and comorbidities in chronic cough in a nationwide cohort.

Methods

Two cohorts were created. A national cohort with individuals from two population-based databases; the National Patient Register and Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Secondly, a regional cohort including primary care data. Adults with at least one cough diagnosis (ICD-10 R05) and/or individuals with ≥2 dispensed prescriptions for relevant cough-medication within the inclusion period, 2016–2018, were identified. Individuals on medications which may instigate cough or suggest acute infection or diagnosed with conditions where cough is a cardinal symptom, were excluded. Those remaining were defined as having possible refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC/UCC).

Results

Altogether 62,963 individuals were identified with possible RCC/UCC, giving a national prevalence of about 1%. Mean age was 56 years and 60% were females. Many (44%) of the individuals with possible RCC/UCC visited cough relevant specialist clinics during the study period, but less than 20% received a cough diagnosis. A majority (63%) had evidence of RCC/UCC in the 10 years prior to inclusion in the study. In the regional cohort, including primary care data, the prevalence of RCC/UCC was doubled (2%). Cough medicines were mainly prescribed by primary care physicians (82%).

Conclusion

Most individuals with possible RCC/UCC sought medical care in primary care, and had a long history of cough, with various treatments tried, indicating a substantial burden of the condition. Referrals to specialist care were very rare. The results underline the need for a structured multidisciplinary approach and future therapeutic options.

Introduction

Chronic cough, defined as cough lasting >8 weeks, is common in the general population, but difficult to treat [1]. Between 10–38% of individuals in a respiratory outpatient clinic in the USA have chronic cough [1], and in the Swedish general population the prevalence of habitual non-productive cough is estimated to be 7–11% [2, 3]. Severe chronic cough causes a major decline in health-related quality of life, with comorbidities including incontinence, cough syncope and dysphonia, leading to social isolation and depression [4]. Also, chronic cough is associated with more sick leave and decreased ability to work [2]. In spite of this, individuals with chronic cough often report their condition as being inadequately appreciated by healthcare [4, 5].

Individuals with chronic cough also seem to seek healthcare to a varying degree [6]. Since there are no specific diagnostic or treatment protocols for chronic cough, and specialist cough clinics are rare, there is a risk for potential discrepancies in the treatments provided for chronic cough [7]. Around half of individuals with chronic cough may still have chronic cough five years after initial evaluation [8].

The terms unexplained or refractory chronic cough (UCC/RCC) are widely used to describe chronic cough that either has no identifiable cause (such as asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or rhinitis), or doesn’t get better despite well-conducted treatment, respectively [2, 3]. Currently, only a few medical treatments are recommended by guidelines for cough, some being potentially addictive medications such as morphine [9]. A recent register-based study from Denmark used prescription and diagnosis healthcare register data to study chronic cough among patients seeking healthcare [10]. In that study, only 3% of the adult population could be identified as having possible chronic cough (PCC), significantly lower than reported in the general population [10]. This could be caused by a lack of clinical acknowledgement of cough, or patients not seeking healthcare. A few shortcomings in the study were that diagnosis data was not available from primary care, lacked analysis of differences between care providers or counties, and the duration of cough [10]. Therefore, better knowledge on the current real-world diagnosis and treatment of individuals with chronic cough is needed, to increase the awareness and improve healthcare for individuals with chronic cough.

The aim was to describe the real-world epidemiology of chronic cough in Sweden by using national register data. More specifically, to describe clinical characteristics and demographics as well as healthcare utilization including medical treatment of a population with possible chronic cough.

Methods

This is a descriptive nationwide observational register-based cohort study, conducted on an adult population identified with possible chronic cough in Sweden from January 2016 –December 2018.

Two different cohorts were created from data available in population-based registers (National Patient Register and Swedish Prescribed Drug Register) as previously described in a Danish cohort [10], with slight differences as described below (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flowchart illustrating the process of identifying individuals with possible chronic cough from Swedish registers.

Fig 1

NPR: National Patient Register; SPDR: Swedish Prescribed Drug Register; PC: Primary Care; ÖG: Östergötland; TBC: Tuberculosis; ACEi: Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitor.

The national cohort included individuals from two Swedish population-based databases: 1) The National Patient Register, covering information on every hospitalization or non-primary care outpatient visits of all Swedish citizens and residents with a 100% coverage. For the included patients information on diagnoses, using ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease), was identified [11]; 2) The Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, containing information on all prescribed medicines and pharmaceutical aids dispensed at Swedish pharmacies since June 2005 (100% coverage) [12].

The regional cohort was created by selecting individuals residing in Östergötland county, Sweden, from the national cohort and then adding individuals identified with PCC from the county’s primary care data. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied.

Data covering earlier R05 diagnoses, comorbidities, and dispensed prescriptions of relevant cough medicine from 2006–2015 for the individuals in the study identified were retrospectively assessed from the same registers.

Unique personal identity numbers (PIN) were used for linking individual data between the sources. Thereafter, the data were pseudonymized by replacing the PIN with a serial number. This process was performed at the National Board of Health and Welfare before the research group received access to data. As the data was pseudonymized healthcare register data only, consent was not needed from the individuals, as confirmed by the ethics committee. The study was approved by the Swedish authority for Ethical approval Review Board (Ref: 2019–06060).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were: Individuals ≥18 of age at date of inclusion, with either minimum one ICD-10 diagnosis code of R05 (cough/cough with no further specification) recorded at a healthcare visit or ≥2 dispenses of relevant cough-medication (as listed in Table A in S1 File) at least 8 weeks apart within the inclusion period, 1st January 2016–31st dec 2018. This definition was used to capture chronic cough (lasting more than 8 weeks).

Individuals were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: 1) Medications which can instigate cough or suggest acute infection, i.e. ACEi or antibiotics, respectively; 2) Conditions where cough is a cardinal symptom, such as: acute cough, pneumonia, tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer and interstitial lung disease, identified by ICD-10 codes. For acute conditions such as pneumonia or acute upper airway infection and antibiotic medications, the event date needed to be within 8 weeks (before or after) of the cough diagnosis or dispensed cough medicine for the subject to be excluded. For other conditions not considered acute, such as cancer, tuberculosis, COPD, other lung diseases or treatment with ACEi, the event could take place at any time during the inclusion period 2016–2018. As the registers do not have information on smoking, smoking status could not be used in the exclusion criteria. The exclusion steps and the exclusion groups are summarized in supplementary data (Tables B and C in S1 File).

Possible refractory /unexplained chronic cough

All eligible individuals in the final cohort were stratified into either possible refractory chronic cough (RCC) or possible unexplained chronic cough (UCC). Individuals were defined as having possible RCC if diagnosed at least once with any of the cough associated co-diagnoses (asthma, GERD, rhinitis) and/or treated with any of the drugs associated with these conditions (at least two dispenses) during the inclusion period. Otherwise, individuals were classified as having possible UCC. The number of individuals per diagnosis is provided in Table D in S1 File, and the number of individuals per associated frug is provided in Table E in S1 File.

Cough-relevant specialist clinics were identified as each clinical type that was responsible for more than 5% of the total number of R05 diagnoses in the national data set. In this cohort cough relevant specialist clinics were specialties of Internal medicine, Ear, nose and throat, Lung, Emergency, Infectious disease, or Allergy.

Mean age and standard deviation at the date of inclusion were calculated, assuming a normalized age distribution. General population data from Statistics Sweden was used to calculate prevalence.

Results

National cohort

During the study period, 256,046 individuals were initially identified with at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code of R05 and / or ≥2 dispenses of relevant cough-medication in the national cohort.

After applying exclusion criteria (Fig 1, Table B in S1 File), a total of 62,963 individuals were identified with PCC (corresponding to a prevalence of 787/100,000 among inhabitants of age ≥18 years), of which 80% were identified from cough medicine dispenses only (Fig 2). The mean age was 56 years, the majority were female, and 56% had possible UCC (Table 1). The individuals identified from cough medicine dispenses only were on average, 9 years older than those identified with cough diagnosis only (Table 1). Age was normally distributed, with few individuals in the oldest and youngest age groups (Fig 3 and S1 Fig). The frequency of cough medicine dispenses varied, with 37% of the individuals having four dispenses or more during the study period (Fig 4).

Fig 2. Two Venn diagrams illustrating the number of individuals with possible chronic cough identified by cough medicine dispenses and/or cough diagnosis.

Fig 2

In turquoise individuals identified with ≥2 dispenses of relevant cough-medication in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, in yellow individuals with cough diagnosis (R05) a) the national cohort with cough diagnosis (R05) from the Swedish National Patient Register and b) the regional cohort with cough diagnosis (R05) from the National Patient Register and the primary care register.

Table 1. Characteristics of individuals with possible chronic cough.

Parameters National cohort Regional cohort
Cough medicine only Cough Diagnosis only Cough Medicine & Cough Diagnosis Total Total
Individuals (n) 50,474 10,794 1,695 62,963 6,402
Individuals (% of cohort) 80.2% 17.1% 2.7% 100% 100%
Woman (%) 60.8% 56.6% 61.4% 60.1% 58.2%
Age (mean (SD)) 58 (18.0) 49 (17.9) 55 (16.4) 56 (18.2) 51 (18.0)
Age >65 (%) 38.2% 21.3% 30.3% 35.1% 24.4%
RCC (%) 44.1% 41.5% 62.2% 44.2% 33.3%
Has Asthma* (%) 10.2% 12.4% 16.9% 10.8% 13.1%
Has Rhinitis* (%) 7.1% 12.4% 14.6% 8.1% 9.0%
Has GERD* (%) 5.1% 7.9% 14.4% 5.8% 8.5%
UCC (%) 55.9% 58.5% 37.8% 55.8% 66.7%

*Recorded diagnosis during 2016–2018

GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; RCC: Refractory chronic cough; UCC: Unexplained chronic cough.

Fig 3. Distribution of age and gender for individuals with possible chronic cough in the national cohort.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Proportion of individuals with possible chronic cough stratified by number of visits with a R05 diagnosis and below proportion of individuals with possible chronic cough stratified by number of cough medicines dispensations 2016–2018.

Fig 4

Some variation was seen between counties regarding the prevalence of cough medicine dispenses and cough diagnosis. Individuals with cough medicine ranged from 499/100,000 inhabitants to 819/100,000 inhabitants, and individuals with cough diagnosis ranged from 99/100,000 inhabitants to 189/100,000 inhabitants (S2 Fig).

Even though 44% of individuals with possible chronic cough had visited any cough relevant specialist clinic during the study period, only 41% of these individuals received a cough diagnosis code, meaning that less than 20% of the whole PCC cohort received a cough diagnosis (ICD-10 code R05, n = 12 489) (Fig 5). Of the individuals who were diagnosed with cough, the majority did not receive any other diagnosis on the same visit (72%). The most common co-diagnosis was R06 (abnormalities of breathing, 21%). Other co-diagnoses are reported in Table F in S1 File.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

a) Individuals visiting cough relevant specialist clinics, stratified by number of visits per patient 2016–2018. b) Number of cough diagnosis recordings at cough relevant specialist clinics cough relevant clinics.

Cough medicines were mainly prescribed in primary care (82.5%) (Table G in S1 File). Treatment with other medications was rather common, where dispensed prescriptions for obstructive respiratory disease were most common (27,301 of those with PCC (43%)). Also, 23,300 (37%) had dispensed prescriptions of anti-acid medicine, 22,504 (36%) had dispensed prescriptions of antibiotics more than 8 weeks prior to or after the date of inclusion, 17,014 (27%) had dispensed prescriptions of systemic antihistamines, and 16,787 (27%) had dispensed prescriptions of nasal medicine. A substantial number of individuals, 5,512 (9%), had a dispensed prescription of anti-epileptic medicine (N03) but without a diagnosis of epilepsy. Further details on dispensed prescriptions are reported in Table H in S1 File.

When looking at opioids specifically, 36,838 (59%) individuals had dispensed any of the opioids (ATC code R05DA04, R05DA20 or R05FA02), and 7,653 (20%) individuals had four or more withdrawals of opioids in the three-year study period (Table I in S1 File).

The national study cohort was then retrospectively analysed, where a majority (63%) of individuals with PCC in 2016–2018 had evidence of a history of cough in the 10 years-period prior to the inclusion, and most commonly already at 10 years prior to inclusion (Fig 6a). More than 30% of the individuals had used cough medicine at least 4 of the prior 10 years, and 45% had dispensed at least 2 prescriptions of cough medicine per year (Fig 6b).

Fig 6.

Fig 6

History of chronic cough a) First identification of possible chronic cough in the 10 years-period prior inclusion in the national cohort. b) Number of years ‘active’ and diagnoses per active year. A patient is considered to have an ‘active’ cough year if they have drug dispenses or cough diagnosis recordings.

Regional cohort

In the regional cohort, where data on diagnoses from primary care was included, the prevalence of PCC was 1.8% (or 1,760 /100,000 inhabitants), mostly because of more frequent cough diagnoses (Fig 2b). The age and gender distribution were similar to the national cohort (Table 1). However, the prevalence in different age groups differed between the regional and national cohort. In the national cohort, the prevalence increased with increasing age groups (18–39, 40–69, ≥70 years), while in the regional cohort, the highest prevalence was seen among those 40–69 years of age (Table 2). A small proportion of individuals identified with PCC in primary care (3.5%) had a referral including a cough diagnosis to a specialist in secondary care.

Table 2. Number of individuals in possible chronic cough cohorts and background cohorts and prevalence for different age groups.

Cohort Age PCC Population Prevalence
National All ages 62,963 80.03 K 787
18–39 12,533 28.53 K 440
40–69 34,190 36.94 K 926
> = 70 16,227 14.58 K 1 113
Regional All ages 6,402 3.63 K 1762
18–39 1,933 1.31 K 1 477
40–69 3,384 1.65 K 2 056
> = 70 1,085 0.68 K 1 598

PCC: Possible chronic cough.

Discussion

In this observational study, possible chronic cough (PCC) was identified in 0.8% of the Swedish adult population, using national pharmacy and secondary care registers. When primary care register data from a single healthcare region was added to the national cohort, the prevalence of PCC in that region increased to 1.8%. The highest prevalence was found in middle-aged adults, higher among females than males. Individuals with PCC were mostly managed in primary care, where also most cough medications were prescribed. Often, the cough medication included opioids. A quarter of the PCC population had two or more visits to cough-relevant clinics during the inclusion period of three years, but only a minority received a cough diagnosis. Altogether, 44% of those with PCC had an identifiable cause of chronic cough (refractory chronic cough, RCC). Most of the individuals (63%) with PCC had register-based evidence of chronic cough in the 10 year-period prior to inclusion. This supports previous findings that RCC/UCC most likely persist for years, causing substantial morbidity and impaired health status [2, 5]. A European survey on 1120 individuals with chronic cough determined that the median duration of cough was 2 to 5 years, 72% of respondents had visited their doctor more than 3 times, but only 53% had received a diagnosis [4].

We found that more than 80% of those with dispensed prescriptions of cough medication received their prescription from primary care. In line with recently published primary care data from the UK, our results support that individuals with chronic cough usually seek medical attention from a healthcare provider in primary care as the first and often only instance [13, 14]. A recent international Delphi study identified variability between geographical regions regarding the treatment of chronic cough, and a need for increased access to specialist care to improve patient care [15].

The prevalence of PCC in the present study (0.8%) was lower than in many questionnaire-based general population studies. For example, a recent epidemiological review found a prevalence of 9.6% in the general population [16]. On the other hand, studies that have used electronic healthcare records or register data have found a lower prevalence, more similar to our findings. A study using electronic healthcare records register in California, USA, found a chronic cough prevalence of 1.0% [17]. A similar study from the UK using both primary and secondary care data found a prevalence of 2.0%, without excluding individuals with COPD [13]. Possible explanations for these discrepancies in prevalence numbers may be that individuals with any of a variety of possible causes of chronic cough were excluded in the current analysis (such as COPD, treatment with ACE inhibitors, treatment with antibiotics, cancer, tuberculosis, and pneumonia), which may have led to an underestimated PCC population [18]. Notable is that in our cohort, more than 42% of the individuals with at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code of R05 or ≥2 dispenses of relevant cough-medication were treated with ACE inhibitors.

Additionally, there is no adequate and commonly agreed method to define chronic cough in epidemiological studies [19]. A recent analysis by Hull et al. argued that only using structured data to identify individuals with chronic cough leads to an underestimation of the actual number since there are no approved treatments or an approved ICD-10 code for RCC/UCC (at least at that time) [13]. Also, cough is for many clinicians, regarded more as a symptom than a distinct medical condition or disease, and therefore not diagnosed and coded as such [14]. This is also supported by the present study, where individuals with possible chronic cough rarely seemed to receive a cough diagnosis on visits to cough relevant clinics.

Another possible explanation for the lower prevalence in register-based data is that individuals with chronic cough have stopped seeking healthcare for their cough, likely because of a lack of treatment modalities [9]. Therefore, these individuals cannot be identified from register data as the time period analysed is relatively short. Indeed, our retrospective data, covering a 10 years-period prior to the inclusion period, showed that the majority of individuals had evidence of PCC 10 years before the inclusion date.

The higher prevalence of PCC in females and in elderly individuals is consistent with findings in other studies [4, 19]. The most common comorbidities in the cohort of possible refractory chronic cough were gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), allergic rhinitis and asthma, also consistent with the current knowledge [9]. This indicates that the patient group identified with PCC using the Swedish healthcare register data is comparable to chronic cough cohorts recruited in clinical studies.

A considerable number of individuals, 36,838, of the adult population in Sweden were identified with dispensed prescriptions of opioids intended for chronic cough (i.e., around 0.5%). The prescription of opioids is of increasing concern because of addiction-related problems [20]. This is a somewhat higher proportion of opioid use compared with recent data from a study in Florida [21]. Other non-addictive treatments need to be sought for this evidently large group of patients.

Most of the individuals in this study had multiple cough medicine dispenses at least eight weeks apart, and almost half of the population had four or more dispenses during the study period, indicating significant chronic cough. In addition, 8.6% of the individuals had dispensed more than 2 prescriptions of cough-relevant anti-epileptics but with no records of associated diagnosis. Only 2% of individuals with at least four dispenses of cough medicines, had a recorded cough diagnosis (R05) in this study. This may in part reflect the lack of an appropriate ICD-10 code at the time. In line with this, a survey performed by the European Lung Foundation found that most individuals (>70%) with long lasting cough had visited their specialist physician 3 times or more. Of these, only 53% had received a cough diagnosis [4]. A recently established ICD-10 code specifically for chronic cough will hopefully lead to more individuals receiving an appropriate diagnosis [9].

Strengths and limitations

The nationwide cohort included a large sample of a well-defined group of patients, which is the main strength of this study. Both the prescription and patient registers are validated on a national level, giving the collected real-world data a high level of credibility and almost 100% coverage [11, 12]. To our knowledge, this is one of very few such studies describing a nationwide population with possible refractory or unexplained chronic cough.

However, there were also some methodological challenges. As inherent to register studies, recorded data was limited by the quality of routinely entered data. As cough is often seen as a symptom rather than a disease, the use of the ICD-10 code R05 for cough is likely underused, especially in RCC. Furthermore, over-the-counter sales of cough medicines is not recorded in the national registers, and thus, chronic cough individuals who only self-medicate will not be captured.

The lack of data from primary care for many Swedish healthcare regions led to a significant number of missing individuals with PCC, as seen by the doubled prevalence in a region with primary care data. However, the characteristics of the patient groups identified with and without primary care data were in most aspects similar.

Identifying RCC/UCC patients based on register data only has some challenges [22]. Some of the information such as adequate treatment of underlying conditions (for RCC) or diagnostic workup process (for UCC) is not available from the register data. Repeated acute cough episodes may have been misclassified as chronic cough, or vice versa. There is a need for improved diagnostic codes characterizing chronic cough to minimize misclassification. Smoking and obesity is also known to be associate with chronic cough [19, 22, 23]. Unfortunately, Swedish registry data does not include BMI or identify smokers, and therefore we could not explore the impact of obesity and smoking on chronic cough. Also, treatment response is not included in the registers, and therefore treatment response could not be assessed.

Nevertheless, the data provide an important presentation of the characteristics of a nationwide population with possible refractory or unexplained chronic cough, and how chronic cough has been managed in Sweden without formal diagnostic or treatment guidelines.

Conclusions

This nationwide observational register-based study contributes to a better understanding of individuals affected by refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Possible chronic cough (PCC) is more prevalent in females and increases with age with a peak around 40–69 years. The majority of individuals with PCC had frequently dispensed medical prescriptions, and a long history of PCC, although often without receiving a formal cough diagnosis. Pharmacological therapy often included the use of opioids. Most individuals with PCC were treated in primary care, without secondary care specialist referrals. This signifies a need for increased awareness of the condition, better treatments, and improved access to specialist care. Further studies are needed to establish how well register-based cohorts of PCC represent chronic cough individuals in general, and how severely they are affected by their cough, to further increase the understanding of this debilitating condition and improve patient care.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Age and gender distribution of individuals with possible chronic cough, by A) those identified from prescriptions only, B) those identified from diagnosis only, C) those identified with both prescriptions and diagnosis, D) those identified in the regional cohort.

(TIF)

pone.0303804.s001.tif (1.1MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Distribution in the 21 county councils in Sweden of included individuals with chronic cough due to ICD 10 code R05 or frequent dispensed prescriptions of relevant cough medicine.

(TIF)

pone.0303804.s002.tif (1,018.1KB, tif)
S1 File

(DOCX)

pone.0303804.s003.docx (88.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Prof Eva Millqvist for valuable and important input to the study protocol.

Data Availability

We agree with the advantages of depositing data openly in repositories. However, as our data come from Swedish healthcare registers, we are not allowed to distribute the data further, and therefore cannot make our data available in repositories. On the other hand, applying for data from Swedish register keepers is open (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/ and https://www.regionostergotland.se/ro), provided a Swedish ethical approval (https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/en/) has been granted. Further information can be provided by the corresponding author.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by MSD (Sweden) AB. The funding was used by an independent part, REVEAL, for data collection, data extractions, and to aggregate and analyze data (grant/award number: not applicable). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Chung KF, Pavord ID. Prevalence, pathogenesis, and causes of chronic cough. Lancet. 2008;371:1364–74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60595-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Johansson H, Johannessen A, Holm M, Forsberg B, Schlünssen V, Jõgi R, et al. Prevalence, progression and impact of chronic cough on employment in Northern Europe. Eur Respir J. 2021;57:2003344. doi: 10.1183/13993003.03344-2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lúdvíksdóttir D, Björnsson E, Janson C, Boman G. Habitual coughing and its associations with asthma, anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux. Chest. 1996;109:1262–8. doi: 10.1378/chest.109.5.1262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chamberlain SA, Garrod R, Douiri A, Masefield S, Powell P, Bücher C, et al. The impact of chronic cough: a cross-sectional European survey. Lung. 20150319th ed. 2015;193:401–8. doi: 10.1007/s00408-015-9701-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Morice AH, Millqvist E, Belvisi MG, Bieksiene K, Birring SS, Chung KF, et al. Expert opinion on the cough hypersensitivity syndrome in respiratory medicine. Eur Respir J. 20140819th ed. 2014;44:1132–48. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00218613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koskela HO, Lätti AM, Pekkanen J. Risk factors for repetitive doctor’s consultations due to cough: a cross-sectional study in a Finnish employed population. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030945. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Puente-Maestu L, Molina-París J, Trigueros JA, Gómez-Sáenz JT, Cea-Calvo L, Fernández S, et al. A Survey of Physicians’ Perception of the Use and Effectiveness of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Chronic Cough Patients. Lung. 2021;199:507–15. doi: 10.1007/s00408-021-00475-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Koskela HO, Lätti AM, Purokivi MK. Long-term prognosis of chronic cough: a prospective, observational cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 20171121st ed. 2017;17:146. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0496-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Morice AH, Millqvist E, Bieksiene K, Birring SS, Dicpinigaitis P, Domingo Ribas C, et al. ERS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in adults and children. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1901136. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01136-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Backer V, Porsborg A, Hansen V, Skjold T, Schmid JM, Kehlet M, et al. A register-based study: cough—a frequent phenomenon in the adult population. BMC Pulm Med. 2022;22:426. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-02228-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, Feychting M, Kim JL, Reuterwall C, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 20110609th ed. 2011;11:450. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wettermark B, Hammar N, Fored CM, MichaelFored C, Leimanis A, Otterblad Olausson P, et al. The new Swedish Prescribed Drug Register—opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological research and experience from the first six months. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:726–35. doi: 10.1002/pds.1294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hull JH, Langerman H, Ul-Haq Z, Kamalati T, Lucas A, Levy ML. Burden and impact of chronic cough in UK primary care: a dataset analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e054832. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Weiner M, Dexter PR, Heithoff K, Roberts AR, Liu Z, Griffith A, et al. Identifying and Characterizing a Chronic Cough Cohort Through Electronic Health Records. Chest. 2021;159:2346–55. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Song W-J, Dupont L, Birring SS, Chung KF, Dąbrowska M, Dicpinigaitis P, et al. Consensus goals and standards for specialist cough clinics: the NEUROCOUGH international Delphi study. ERJ Open Res. 2023;9:00618–2023. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00618-2023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Song W-J, Chang Y-S, Faruqi S, Kim J-Y, Kang M-G, Kim S, et al. The global epidemiology of chronic cough in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2015;45:1479–81. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00218714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zeiger RS, Xie F, Schatz M, Hong BD, Weaver JP, Bali V, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Chronic Cough in Adults Identified by Administrative Data. TPJ. 2020;24:20.022. doi: 10.7812/TPP/20.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Landt E, Çolak Y, Lange P, Laursen LC, Nordestgaard BG, Dahl M. Chronic Cough in Individuals With COPD. Chest. 2020;157:1446–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Çolak Y, Nordestgaard BG, Laursen LC, Afzal S, Lange P, Dahl M. Risk Factors for Chronic Cough Among 14,669 Individuals From the General Population. Chest. 2017;152:563–73. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.05.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Martins SS, Keyes KM, Storr CL, Zhu H, Grucza RA. Birth-cohort trends in lifetime and past-year prescription opioid-use disorder resulting from nonmedical use: results from two national surveys. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71:480–7. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang S, Huang S, Hincapie-Castillo JM, Ke X, Ding H, Schelfhout J, et al. Patterns of Cough Medication Prescribing among Patients with Chronic Cough in Florida: 2012–2021. JCM. 2023;12:6286. doi: 10.3390/jcm12196286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Holden SE, Morice A, Birring SS, Jenkins-Jones S, Langerman H, Weaver J, et al. Cough presentation in primary care and the identification of chronic cough: a need for diagnostic clarity? Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2020;36:139–50. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1673716 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Landt EM, Çolak Y, Nordestgaard BG, Lange P, Dahl M. Risk and impact of chronic cough in obese individuals from the general population. Thorax. 2022;77:223–30. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sherief Ghozy

24 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-39518Characteristics, demographics, and epidemiology of possible chronic cough in Sweden: A nationwide register-based cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sherief Ghozy, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was supported by MSD (Sweden) AB. The funding was used by REVEAL for data extractions, and time spent for aggregation and analysis of data (grant/award number: not applicable).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We want to thank Prof Eva Millqvist for valuable and important input to the study protocol. Appreciations to MSD (Sweden) AB for the unrestricted funding to support time spent for aggregation and analysis of data.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was supported by MSD (Sweden) AB. The funding was used by REVEAL for data extractions, and time spent for aggregation and analysis of data (grant/award number: not applicable).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“Conflicts of interest:The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work, except that LW is employed by MSD (Sweden) AB, but with no stock ownership. ÖE has received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca for advisory work, unrelated to this manuscript.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

8. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

9. We note that Fig S2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Fig S2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

10. We notice that your supplementary Figures and tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author

The register-based cohort study in a Sweden population is very interesting.

But the data is only about demographics of population with cough.

There is no new or interesting finding related to cough in population in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: A good study addressing chronic cough.

# Smoking is also one of the major causes for chronic cough even without established COPD. Addressing it becomes mandatory.

# Not only treating but also assessing the treatment response will help physicians across world to provide better patient care. Provide the data for treatment response if available.

# Discussion seems superficial. Dig and include more comparative studies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-39518.pdf

pone.0303804.s004.pdf (2.5MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 24;19(7):e0303804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303804.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Mar 2024

Reviewer #1: Dear Author

The register-based cohort study in a Sweden population is very interesting.

Reply: Thank you for this positive comment!

But the data is only about demographics of population with cough.

There is no new or interesting finding related to cough in population in the manuscript.

Reply: This is an important comment. The cohort described shows a cohort that in most aspects is similar to those found in clinical studies on chronic cough. This is important to show, as this is the first study identifying patients with chronic cough using the nationwide Swedish healthcare register data, indicating that our method finds patients with chronic cough similar to those identified in clinical studies. In that aspect, the findings are novel. We have now emphasized this in the discussion section, line 304-306, by adding the following: “This indicates that the patient group identified with PCC using the Swedish healthcare register data is comparable to chronic cough cohorts recruited in clinical studies.”

Also, the real-world prevalence within the healthcare setting, as well as where the patients are treated, has not been shown before.

Reviewer #2: A good study addressing chronic cough.

# Smoking is also one of the major causes for chronic cough even without established COPD. Addressing it becomes mandatory.

Reply: This is an important comment. Unfortunately, the Swedish healthcare register data does not include any data on smoking, and therefore this important factor could not be included in the analysis. This is addressed in the discussion, section on limitations, but we have now also added this to the methods section, lines 145-146: “As the registers do not have information on smoking, smoking status could not be used in the exclusion criteria.”

# Not only treating but also assessing the treatment response will help physicians across world to provide better patient care. Provide the data for treatment response if available.

Reply: Unfortunately, treatment response is also not included in the Swedish healthcare register data, and could therefore not be included. This is now highlighted in the section on limitations, lines 347-349: “Also, treatment response is not included in the registers, and therefore treatment response could not be assessed.”

# Discussion seems superficial. Dig and include more comparative studies.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now made some adjustments: In response to a comment made by reviewer 1, we have emphasized the novelty of the method used (see reply above). Also, we have added a deeper interpretation of our finding regarding patients being largely treated in primary care only by adding the following in lines 272-274: “A recent international Delphi study identified variability between geographical regions regarding the treatment of chronic cough, and a need for increased access to specialist care to improve patient care.” with reference to “Song WJ et al, 2023, ERJ Open Research”. Finally, we added to the discussion on opioid use in chronic cough, lines 312-313: “This is a somewhat higher proportion of opioid use compared with recent data from a study in Florida.” with reference to “Yang S et al, 2023, J Clin Med”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

pone.0303804.s005.docx (29.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sherief Ghozy

1 May 2024

Characteristics, demographics, and epidemiology of possible chronic cough in Sweden: A nationwide register-based cohort study

PONE-D-23-39518R1

Dear Dr. Walz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sherief Ghozy, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Sherief Ghozy

15 May 2024

PONE-D-23-39518R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walz,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sherief Ghozy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Age and gender distribution of individuals with possible chronic cough, by A) those identified from prescriptions only, B) those identified from diagnosis only, C) those identified with both prescriptions and diagnosis, D) those identified in the regional cohort.

    (TIF)

    pone.0303804.s001.tif (1.1MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Distribution in the 21 county councils in Sweden of included individuals with chronic cough due to ICD 10 code R05 or frequent dispensed prescriptions of relevant cough medicine.

    (TIF)

    pone.0303804.s002.tif (1,018.1KB, tif)
    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    pone.0303804.s003.docx (88.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-39518.pdf

    pone.0303804.s004.pdf (2.5MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    pone.0303804.s005.docx (29.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    We agree with the advantages of depositing data openly in repositories. However, as our data come from Swedish healthcare registers, we are not allowed to distribute the data further, and therefore cannot make our data available in repositories. On the other hand, applying for data from Swedish register keepers is open (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/ and https://www.regionostergotland.se/ro), provided a Swedish ethical approval (https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/en/) has been granted. Further information can be provided by the corresponding author.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES