4.6 Article

Research priorities in bronchiectasis: a consensus statement from the EMBARC Clinical Research Collaboration

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 632-647

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01888-2015

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Inhaled Antibiotics in Bronchiectasis and Cystic Fibrosis consortium, a project of the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative [115721]
  2. European Respiratory Society as Clinical Research Collaboration
  3. Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bronchiectasis is a disease of renewed interest in light of an increase in prevalence and increasing burden on international healthcare systems. There are no licensed therapies, and large gaps in knowledge in terms of epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapy. The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) is a European Respiratory Society (ERS) Clinical Research Collaboration, funded by ERS to promote high-quality research in bronchiectasis. The objective of this consensus statement was to define research priorities in bronchiectasis. From 2014 to 2015, EMBARC used a modified Delphi process among European bronchiectasis experts to reach a consensus on 55 key research priorities in this field. During the same period, the European Lung Foundation collected 711 questionnaires from adult patients with bronchiectasis and their carers from 22 European countries reporting important research priorities from their perspective. This consensus statement reports recommendations for bronchiectasis research after integrating both physicians and patients priorities, as well as those uniquely identified by the two groups. Priorities identified in this consensus statement provide the clearest possible roadmap towards improving our understanding of the disease and the quality of care for patients with bronchiectasis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available