Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Four reviews and still no answers: our clinical definitions are at fault
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Acute bronchitis is one of the commonest medical problems managed by health services, and one of the important clinical questions is whether antibiotics do any good. Fittingly, for such a common problem, there have been four systematic reviews comparing antibiotics with placebo for treating bronchitis. All, however, have reached clinically unhelpful conclusions, which simply exposes the perennial problem for all systematic reviews that demonstrate no or only marginal benefits from the intervention: is there a subgroup that might derive benefit? It also exposes the procrustean nature of our definitions of acute bronchitis.*
Three of the reviews included meta-analyses1-3 and one
was a qualitative systematic review of the literature.4
They include almost all the same studies,
although Fahey et
al2 called their review a systematic review of acute cough
in adults and included unpublished data from Stephenson. They all came
to similar ambiguous and clinically unhelpful conclusions, the most
negative
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+