Cough hypersensitivity syndrome is an important clinical concept:a pro/con debate

The major etiologies of chronic cough are generally accepted to consist of upper airway cough syndrome (formerly postnasal drip syndrome), eosinophilic airway inflammation (asthma, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, only a small percentage of patients with these very common conditions suffers from chronic cough. Furthermore, acute cough due to viral upper respiratory tract infection (URI) is almost always a transient, self-limited condition, yet in a small subgroup of patients, URI heralds the onset of chronic, refractory cough. The cough hypersensitivity syndrome has been proposed to explain the occurrence of chronic cough in a subgroup of patients exposed to the same putative triggers as the vast majority of the population in whom chronic cough does not result. Although conceptually the cough hypersensitivity syndrome may be intellectually satisfying, differences of opinion remain as to whether this newly recognized entity is of clinical significance, i.e., useful for the treatment of patients suffering from chronic cough. The Third American Cough Conference, held in New York in June 2011, provided an ideal forum for the debate of this issue between two internationally recognized authorities in the field of cough.

Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:Implications for mixed-methods research

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.

"Angels and Demons in Cromwellian and Restoration Ireland: Heresy and the Supernatural"

This essay explores accounts of supernatural activity in Cromwellian and Restoration Ireland. Religious life in Cromwellian Ireland was driven by expectations of the unusual—including audible voices from heaven, material encounters with angels, and spiritual encounters with demons. Some conservative Protestants linked this activity to the development and dissemination of heretical belief, while some who had such encounters were confident that it was compatible with the Cromwellian religious mainstream. Crawford Gribben explores the flexibility in the discourse of the marvelous in Ireland and the ways in which the administration contributed to it, and the alignment of the supernatural with various confessional convictions and postures, as well as theological radicalism. After the Restoration, accounts of supernatural encounters were remembered as ghost stories, not as matters for theological debate, a cultural transition linked to the development of a historiography that has continued to invest the Irish Cromwellian past with Gothic tropes.