Talk:Bronchiectasis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Surajkapoor94. Peer reviewers: Theyellowdart22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Signet Ring Sign

Should this be added to radiological features? The unusual name is in reports and common parlance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.33.222 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on my background as a medical student going into radiology, I think the signet ring sign may be too technical for inclusion on this page

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Diseases associated with bronchiectasis

There seems to be a difference of opinion about the most common infections associated with Bronchiectasis. In the intro it says Staph, Klebsiella and Bordetella (backed up by an emedicine article). In the pathogenesis section it says Staph and Moraxella. I'm not really sure how to resolve this since I can't actually access the second article. It could be that the intro section lists causes whereas the pathogenesis section is just listing common secondary infections but I was confused. Naranoth (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No more mention of names of bacterial infections in pathophysiology section. These are now included in causes

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Overhaul

As a note, on this day, I have overhauled about 85% of this article. I have a few touch-ups to go, because I think part of the prevention and treatment sections are poorly written. I removed the unsourced tag, which I think is fair enough because of the properly sourced references. For anyone that cares, I promise that I'm not done here, I finish all of my articles to completion! Be patient, it's almost done, though. WiiAlbanyGirl 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. If I find anymore stuff, I will certainly add it. Cheers! WiiAlbanyGirl 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Williams-Campbell

I can not see Williams-Campbell syndrome mentioned under congenital bronchiectasis, is there a reason for this? User:Jaere 10:52, 6 Nov 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.186.68.6 (talk)

Williams-Campbell and other genetic causes have been added to Causes section and table

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ICS

I think that stating that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) will halt bronchiectasis is a bit misleading. There is some evidence from short term trials that they may reduce 24 hour sputum production or inflammatory markers, but nothing conclusive to indicate a reduction in the number of exacerbations (as indicated by transient increase in sputum volume or purulence), and no trials were followed up for long enough to provide any information on a reduction (or otherwise) in the rate of progression of the disease state. Although interestingly a number of trials investigating ICS in COPD (which shares many similarities to bronchiectasis, being neutrophil driven, and also may co-exist in a number of patients) show that ICS have no-effect whatsoever on the rate of lung function decline as evidenced by progressive FEV1 and FVC measurments, although they do reduce the rate of exacerbations (possibly offset by the increased incidence of pneumonia). Also i feel that grouping salbutamol (a beta-agonist bronchodilator), fluticasone (an ICS), and ipratropium (an anticholinergic) all with different modes of action in the same paragraph and concluding they clear the airways and reduce inflammation is possible a tad confusing. hi there.

In Management section, balanced information on use of ICS has been added with supporting evidence from clinical trial research. Specific language that it is not recommended in children

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

General Discussion

I apologize, but on my recent edit, I mistakenly checked the minor edit box. The information was also refrenced from a recent article in a newspaper. (Did not have knowledge of citing) Mastado (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Marfan Syndrome

Can you please add marfan syndrome as a cause of Bronchiectasis. Source the marfan trust - http://www.marfantrust.org/what_is_marfan_syndrome/medical_problems_and_treatments/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.244.214 (talk • contribs) 09.25, 8 December 2010 (GMT)

 Done, added to the congenital causes section. The page isn't protected though, so you could have made the edit yourself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Simplifying the language of the definition

This article begins with an overly complex and unreferenced description of bronchiectasis: "Bronchiectasis is a disease state defined by localized, irreversible dilation of part of the bronchial tree caused by destruction of the muscle and elastic tissue." Here are some sources that word it much more simply: American Lung Association, Patient.co.uk, and this is a good definition (although the language is also too complex): NICE Clinical Knowledge Summary. Hildabast (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Imagery

The images are interesting, but it's hard for a lay person like me to tell what I'm looking at. Perhaps somewhere there are photos comparing a healthy specimen with a bronchiectatic one?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

One gross pathology image replaced. Captions changed to try to make it easier to understand. CT image caption now explicitly states specific finding of bronchiectasis that is visible on imaging

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This article's lead

Too long, too much info, too many references (most not required as info is non-controversial), doesn't flow (read well), ref. MOS:LEAD, i propose rewriting it over the next week, thoughts? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS we write medical leads in easier to understand language. This means using simpler words and short sentences. Yes we sacrifice some flow for greater understanding by a general audience.

Leads are supposed to be about 4 paragraphs which this is. This is the typically length of leads for medical articles so no real reason to shorten it. Body could use expansion.

There is nothing wrong with fully referencing the lead. And this is specifically allowed per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

okay, thanks for explanation, will leave it as is:) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Surgical treatment

It's my understanding that lobectomy is a common surgical treatment for advanced bronchiectasis (or for the damage therefrom). The article doesn't seem to mention it, so should it? Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In Management section under Surgery, information on lung segmentectomy added

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bronchiectasis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922192301/http://www.marfantrust.org/what_is_marfan_syndrome/what_causes_marfan_syndrome/ to http://www.marfantrust.org/what_is_marfan_syndrome/what_causes_marfan_syndrome/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine: Medical Student Work Plan, Oct-Nov 2019

Greetings fellow wikipedians! I am a 4th year medical student and am planning to improve this article over the next 4 weeks, hopefully getting it to a quality grade of "B"

1. I plan on editing the lead section to make it more readable for a lay person. Currently, based on the Hemingway editor app it is at a readability level of post-graduate. I would like to bring it down to a readability level goal of between 10 and 12 as the lead is what most Wikipedia readers will read first when arriving at this article
2. I plan on adding to the Signs and Symptoms heading, expanding it significantly and adding citations. I would also like to add additional internal links to this section so readers can quickly learn more about the specific symptoms.
3. I plan on modifiying the Causes section by adding subheadings for each cause and a brief description with how the specific cause results in the development of bronchiectasis. The readability level of the Causes section is also postgraduate based on the Hemingway editor app and I would like to reduce the amount of technical jargon present improve the readability to a goal of 12.
4. I would like to add to the Pathophysiology section as it is very short and could be greatly expanded. I will add citations from an open-access review article to this section. I may consider creating a diagram myself that shows the pathophysiology and uploading it to aid readers in understanding the pathophysiology of this disease.
5. I plan on potentially removing some of the gross pathology and radiologic images and adding different images to the article (or at least updating their captions) to make them more understandable for a lay-reader as previous comments on this talk page have mentioned that these images are difficult to understand or interpret.
6. I plan on expanding the Treatment section to include subheadings for each class of treatment and a more thorough description of each one. I will edit this in accords with Wikipedia Manual of Style of Medicine related articles. I will also likely change the name of this heading from treatment to management.
7. Lastly, I will go through all of the citations and make sure they support what is actually being cited. I will update the references if they are wrong or incorrect.

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As of 11/8/2019, I have updated the Causes and Management headings. I will continue to edit these as my fellow classmates peer-review my work. I am next going to edit the lead to make it more readable and remove information that is now covered thoroughly in other sections of the article.

Surajkapoor94 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Kapoor, Excellent work on your Wikipedia edits. I am very impressed with the changes to the organization and content that you and other Wikipedians have made. Here are a few specific comments: Lead Section

1. First sentence: This seems a bit jumbled. Could it be “…is a lung disease of permanent airway enlargement”?
2. Very good summary of key information

Article

1. Organization: Very professional organization. Extremely logical.
2. Content: I really like the table. While it is a lot of information, I think that it acts as a good reference. I might prefer to have the pathophysiology section come before the causes section, as you explain some of the pathophys in that section. Placing pathophys first may allow the reader to understand the causes with more context. Pictures are good for helping orient the reader.
3. Balance: Not much apparent controversy with this page, which is a sign of good writing.
4. Tone: Professional tone, accessible to medical professionals and patients alike.

References

1. Citations: For the most part, citations are very complete (e.g. causes section has citations in almost every sentence). A few missing citations, such as the amount of sputum production under “signs and symptoms,” but that is extremely minor and not very significant.
2. Sources: Excellent mix of review articles and book chapters. Reputable names, such as Nature Reviews, Cochrane Database, etc.

Existing article

1. New Sections: It looks like you added significant info to many sections, but particularly “Causes.” I think it is fantastic detail, but as I mentioned earlier, might be better right after the pathophysiology section.
2. Re-organization: I really like the switch to “Managements.” I think that more accurately captures the intent of the article.
3. Gaps: None identifiable. Any more info would likely just be overkill.

Keep up the good work! Theyellowdart22 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes

This source says evidence is unclear https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=11034745 thus restored.

Other source comments that it is used but does not provide evidence of benefit.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)