Management and diagnosis of psychogenic cough, habit cough, and tic cough: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Several pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutic options have been used to treat cough that is not associated with a pulmonary or extrapulmonary etiology.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence supporting different cough management options in adults and children with psychogenic, tic, and habit cough. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus were searched from the earliest inception of each database to September 2013. Content experts were contacted, and we searched bibliographies of included studies to identify additional references.

RESULTS: A total of 18 uncontrolled studies were identified, enrolling 223 patients (46% male subjects, 96% children and adolescents). Psychogenic cough was the most common descriptive term used (90% of the studies). Most of the patients (95%) had no cough during sleep; barking or honking quality of cough was described in only eight studies. Hypnosis (three studies), suggestion therapy (four studies), and counseling and reassurance (seven studies) were the most commonly used interventions. Hypnosis was effective in resolving cough in 78% of the patients and improving it in another 5%. Suggestion therapy resolved cough successfully in 96% of the patients. The greatest majority of improvements noted with these forms of therapy occurred in the pediatric age group. The quality of evidence is low due to the lack of control groups, the retrospective nature of all the studies, heterogeneity of definitions and diagnostic criteria, and the high likelihood of reporting bias.

CONCLUSIONS: Only low-quality evidence exists to support a particular strategy to define and treat psychogenic, habit, and tic cough. Patient values, preferences, and availability of potential therapies should guide treatment choice.

Laboratizing the border: The production, translation and anticipation of security technologies

This paper critically interrogates how borders are produced by scientists, engineers and security experts in advance of the actual deployment of technical devices they develop. This paper explores the prior stages of translation and decision-making as a socio-technical device is conceived and developed. Drawing on in-depth interviews, observations and ethnographic research of the EU-funded Handhold project (consisting of nine teams in five countries), it explores how assumptions about the way security technologies will and should perform at the border shape the way that scientists, engineers, and security experts develop a portable, integrated device to detect CBRNE threats at borders. In disaggregating the moments of sovereign decision making across multiple sites and times, this paper questions the supposed linearity of how science comes out of and feeds back into the world of border security. An interrogation of competing assumptions and understandings of security threats and needs, of competing logics of innovation and pragmatism, of the demands of differentiated temporalities in detection and interrogation, and of the presumed capacities, behaviours, and needs of phantasmic competitors and end-users reveals a complex, circulating and co-constitutive process of device development that laboratises the border itself. We trace how sovereign decisions are enacted as assemblages in the antecedent register of device development itself through the everyday decisions of researchers in the laboratory, and the material components of the Handhold device itself.