Talk:Habit cough

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the respiratory system.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubious

The information in this article seems dubious and does not appear to be of an academic standard. It make categoric statements e.g. that a habit cough occurs in children without mentioning the fact that it can occur in adolescents and adults. It also is quite specific about the type of cough and this certainty is not seen in official medical sources on this topic. The article also gives simplistic criteria which contradict that by the ACCP. A few of these errors have been corrected and references given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copywhatsleft (talk • contribs)

Sandbox rewrite

This article relies on marginal and primary sources, when plenty of secondary reviews are available. I have placed a list of secondary reviews and other sources in Habit cough#Further reading, and am planning to rewrite this article from scratch in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That 2015 recommendation is just a mess. Make different books agree and practically ignore the patient. It seems more like hermeneutics than medicine. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does look to be a problem; now my problem is to write all of this up in a sensible way that represents all views :) I am slowly working in my sandbox, but what I should probably do is add an entire History section that better explains the 2006 guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]