支气管炎(急性)。

BMJ clinical evidence Pub Date : 2015-07-17
Peter Wark
{"title":"支气管炎(急性)。","authors":"Peter Wark","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Acute bronchitis affects more than 40 in 1000 adults per year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. One third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods and outcomes: </strong>We conducted a systematic review, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2015 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 420 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 306 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 245 studies and the further review of 61 full publications. Of the 61 full articles evaluated, three updated systematic reviews and three RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 12 PICO combinations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this systematic review we categorised the efficacy for six intervention-comparison combinations, based on information about the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, antihistamines, antitussives, beta2 agonists (inhaled), and expectorants/mucolytics.</p>","PeriodicalId":72432,"journal":{"name":"BMJ clinical evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4505629/pdf/2015-1508.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bronchitis (acute).\",\"authors\":\"Peter Wark\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Acute bronchitis affects more than 40 in 1000 adults per year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. One third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods and outcomes: </strong>We conducted a systematic review, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2015 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 420 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 306 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 245 studies and the further review of 61 full publications. Of the 61 full articles evaluated, three updated systematic reviews and three RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 12 PICO combinations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this systematic review we categorised the efficacy for six intervention-comparison combinations, based on information about the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, antihistamines, antitussives, beta2 agonists (inhaled), and expectorants/mucolytics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ clinical evidence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4505629/pdf/2015-1508.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ clinical evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ clinical evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:急性支气管炎影响超过40 / 1000成年人每年在英国。病因通常被认为是传染性的,但只有大约一半的人有可识别的病原体。吸烟或环境烟草烟雾吸入在急性支气管炎易感性中的作用尚不清楚。三分之一的人可能有较长期的症状或复发。方法和结果:我们进行了一项系统综述,旨在回答以下临床问题:无慢性呼吸系统疾病的急性支气管炎患者的治疗效果如何?我们检索了截至2015年5月的Medline、Embase、The Cochrane Library和其他重要数据库(临床证据概述定期更新;请查看我们的网站获取最新版本的概述)。结果:在本次更新中,检索电子数据库检索到420项研究。在删除和删除会议摘要后,306条记录被筛选纳入概述。对标题和摘要的评估排除了245项研究,并进一步审查了61份完整出版物。在被评估的61篇全文中,本次更新中增加了3篇更新的系统综述和3篇随机对照试验。我们对12个PICO组合进行了GRADE评估。结论:在这篇系统综述中,我们根据以下干预措施的有效性和安全性信息,对六种干预对比组合的疗效进行了分类:抗生素、抗组胺药、止咳药、β 2激动剂(吸入)和祛痰剂/黏液剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bronchitis (acute).

Introduction: Acute bronchitis affects more than 40 in 1000 adults per year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. One third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.

Methods and outcomes: We conducted a systematic review, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2015 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).

Results: At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 420 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 306 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 245 studies and the further review of 61 full publications. Of the 61 full articles evaluated, three updated systematic reviews and three RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 12 PICO combinations.

Conclusions: In this systematic review we categorised the efficacy for six intervention-comparison combinations, based on information about the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, antihistamines, antitussives, beta2 agonists (inhaled), and expectorants/mucolytics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信