4.6 Article

European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00629-2017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Bronchiectasis Network (EMBARC)
  2. EMBARC/European Lung Foundation bronchiectasis patient advisory group
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/L011263/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MR/L011263/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bronchiectasis in adults is a chronic disorder associated with poor quality of life and frequent exacerbations in many patients. There have been no previous international guidelines. The European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis describe the appropriate investigation and treatment strategies determined by a systematic review of the literature. A multidisciplinary group representing respiratory medicine, microbiology, physiotherapy, thoracic surgery, primary care, methodology and patients considered the most relevant clinical questions (for both clinicians and patients) related to management of bronchiectasis. Nine key clinical questions were generated and a systematic review was conducted to identify published systematic reviews, randomised clinical trials and observational studies that answered these questions. We used the GRADE approach to define the quality of the evidence and the level of recommendations. The resulting guideline addresses the investigation of underlying causes of bronchiectasis, treatment of exacerbations, pathogen eradication, long term antibiotic treatment, anti-inflammatories, mucoactive drugs, bronchodilators, surgical treatment and respiratory physiotherapy. These recommendations can be used to benchmark quality of care for people with bronchiectasis across Europe and to improve outcomes.

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