Talk:Acute bronchitis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Pulmonology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Specificity of Article[edit]

May 6, 2006 Regular bronchitis should be clearly differentiated from chronic bronchitis. It is True that statisticallyis caused by smoking. (Same thing for emphysema for that matter) Personally, I feel that Chronic Bronchitis should be separated from this article and placed under COPD. -PrimaryRamus its killing me

I agree, acute bronchitis is an infection, chronic bronchitis isn't (although one can have acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis) does anyone want to volunteer to rewrite this article into acute bronchitis and migrate all the info on chronic bronchitis over the COPD?

Dakoman 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is a bit of mess. I suppose I should sort it out (isn't that what a Wiki is about?). -- Nick Bell 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree chronic should be a separate article. I was interested in acute bronchitis and found the discussion of chronic distracting and a mild annoyance. 220.233.208.223 12:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

yeh, but you guys are forgetting that the title just says 'bronchitis' therefore it contains both types of bronchitis, so you should have been expecting it really.

Bias in this report[edit]

The writer has stressed smoking as THE cause of bronchitis. This is wrong. please read below for a more accurate/less biased report (though certainly not pro smoking).

Causes According to the Mayo page colds and acute bronchitus are often caused by the same viruses and stomach acid backing up into the food pipe (GERD) and noninfectious bronchitis from cigarette smoke and exposure to household chemicals.

Chronic bronchitis is strongly related to smoking and air pollutants.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bronchitis/DS00031/DSECTION=3&

Needs Clean Up[edit]

Wow this page is a mess. I came here looking for info on treatment. Blech. 76.21.4.109 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above " is something that I think may depend upon but not precluded by it)

While you're at it: "Acute bronchitis often follows a cold or infection. It may be viral or bacterial." I've read that 90% of acute bronchitis is viral, yet doctors still prescribe antibiotic courses to treat. Is this in case it's the 10%? Or is it to make patients feel they've gotten their money's worth? If 90% is cited, of course (of course) it needs a source.--Justfred 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it takes up to a week to culture sputum, and since acute bacterial bronchitis can in rare cases kill (and in less than a week), and since antibiotics are ridiculously cheap, I suspect it's because of the 10%. --Charlene 22:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
While acute bronchitis is mostly caused by viral infection, bacterial infection often follows; it is not known whether antibiotics hasten recovery in otherwise healthy individuals. In otherwise healthy adults it gets better in 4-8 days, without the patient becoming seriously ill. (Kumar P., Clark M., Clinical medicine 6th Edition) Yazza 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Fjeh: Agree with the bias. The article refers to cigarette smoking far more than is necessary and where inappropriate.

I think this needs more cleanup. For example, the following sentence is confusing: "Unlike many disorders, bronchitis can not be acute (short-term), or chronic (long-lasting). " I'm assuming it should be "...bronchitis can be acute..." but I didn't want to change it myself as I do not know much about bronchitis except from a layman's perspective. Dpeters11 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is written mainly about chronic bronchitis (which has its own page), and completely ignores the link between asthma and bronchitis; which is that when the lungs produce an excess of overly thick mucus that the lungs cannot clear easily (as occurs in asthma), there is ample breeding ground for viruses/bacteria/fungi or whatever to grow. I'm an otherwise healthy young adult who gets bronchitis 3-4 times a year because of this, I'll happily write that section-I certainly understand it by now. LeeRamsey (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Smoking is not being scapegoated[edit]

Currently there is a user, 70.242.76.127, who has been placing snarky edits suggesting that people stop driving or eating cooked meals to treat bronchitis. There are sources cited, but they are very weak in this context. I understand that a lot of smokers feel under siege these days, but stating "To help the bronchial tree heal faster and not make bronchitis worse, smokers should cut down on the number of cigarettes they smoke, or quit altogether [1] " is not a "mini-lecture against smokers" as he called it on my Talk page. I think it's pretty well established that tobacco smoke can cause exacerbation of bronchitis. The statement didn't say "you should never smoke EVER," though quitting is given as an option -- it suggests cutting back or quitting. This seems quite reasonable and NPOV to me.

If there are reputable medical sources out there saying that one should cut back on cooked food and driving to treat a simple case of bronchitis, that is one thing -- but the sources he cited don't back that up. This sounds more like a typical response in smoker/nonsmoker arguments, setting up cars (or cooking fumes) as a strawman. Of course, if the air quality is bad where you live, and you have bronchitis, that is certainly an issue, but the edits made here seemed to be axe-grinding and not encyclopedic. (If any of this doesn't make sense, forgive me, I have a rip-roaring case of bronchitis myself at the moment.) ManekiNeko | Talk 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The source cited for smokers does not make any reference to cannabis. Edited. |Ateo (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

length of illness[edit]

the Treatment section states "acute bronchitis is caused by viruses, not bacteria and it will go away on its own after a few days without antibiotics," (emphasis added) whereas the Prognosis section states "Acute bronchitis usually lasts approximately 20 or 30 days." which of these is correct? Theroyalweman 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Diet[edit]

I removed an addition that linked diet to "respiratory symptoms". Obviously, that is not the equivalent of acute bronchitis, so the study is out of context. Also, it is promotion of a website called InsiderMedicine.

I have chased the reference in question. It is: Burns JS, Dockery DW, Neas LM, et al (2007). "Low dietary nutrient intakes and respiratory health in adolescents". Chest 132 (1): 238–45. doi:10.1378/chest.07-0038. PMID 17475634.  JFW | T@lk 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same?[edit]

Is this the same as "obstructive bronchitis" or "spastic bronchitis"? 212.179.71.70 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove mention of Adenoviridae? re: reversion on Nov 19, 2007[edit]

I reverted the edit which linked bronchitis that is caused by smoking to "systemic and gastroentestinal symptoms."

I reverted it to the previous version, which talked about bronchitis that is caused by Adenoviridae, though the Adenoviridae article says that it can cause bronchiolitis -- not bronchitis.

The footnote for the sentence links here:

Civilian Outbreak of Adenovirus Acute Respiratory Disease -- South Dakota, 1997 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00053922.htm

The linked text doesn't contain the word "bronchitis".

Maybe the sentence which talks about Adenoviridae -- and its footnote -- should be removed from this article? I could "be bold" and do that, but maybe someone else has better info on why the sentence should stay. --Ac44ck (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Contagious[edit]

Not to sound ignorant or anything, but the article doesn't seem to say anything about whether bronchitis is contagious or not.--AveryG (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting the etymology, bronchitis is derivative from the Greek word bronchos, meaning windpipe or throat. It is on the other hand is a suffix noun that pertains to diseases.
Bronchitis is not contagious - it literally means inflammation of the Bronchi (lung tubes).
Now, depending on what caused a person to have bronchitis, you may catch that. . like a bacterial infection or virus.
It appears that one must first "catch" a bacterial or viral infection. Whether it turns into bronchitis may depend on what happens after the infection is caught.
Anecdotal original research alert: The worst case that I witnessed might have been prolonged by a much-less-than-sterile environment around the infected party -- especially the bathroom. Perhaps some bacteria found a home outside the host -- maybe what was growing on the walls of the shower came from their lungs. When the host improved, reinforcements might have been waiting to be stirred up by the shower mist and strengthen the infection which had been weakened by antibiotics. Cleaning the bathroom may have aided the recovery. YMMV. Though the antihistamines were stopped at about the same time, so perhaps re-infection was not a major contributor to the duration of the illness. Still, better sanitation (if it has been lacking) might inhibit the Matt 12:44 routine by preventing bacteria from building a second front. Observe how often doctors wash their hands.
--Ac44ck (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all the google searches, but why can't this article include this information>--AveryG (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it can. Maybe this is an opportunity to be bold and fix it. Note that the link above which says "Bronchitis is not contagious" probably doesn't meet the criteria for verifiability.--Ac44ck (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::Bronchitis is not contagious - it literally means inflammation of the Bronchi (lung tubes).

Now, depending on what caused a person to have bronchitis, you may catch that. . like a bacterial infection or virus.
It appears that one must first "catch" a bacterial or viral infection. Whether it turns into bronchitis may depend on what happens after the infection is caught.
Who posted this?--AveryG (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Diff feature in the history page is a way to determine who posted what.
--Ac44ck (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bronchitis as cause of death[edit]

Which form of bronchitis is fatal, and what is the manner of death? I ask as a result of the recently created category Category:Deaths from bronchitis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pneumonia[edit]

I checked the part about bronchitis causing pneumonia, and not once in the article for pneumonia is the word bronchitis mentioned, and that quote is uncited as well. I'm deleting it for now, revert if necessary. -09SentraSpecV (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So it looks like bronchitis can cause pneumonia, and I heard a doctor say that as well. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bronchitis+turns+pneumonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.183.200 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Antibiotics suck[edit]

... mostly; JAMA doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12839 JFW | T@lk 09:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to discuss National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 191: Pneumonia. London, 2014. as it discusses the use of CRP in stratifying need for antibiotics. JFW | T@lk 09:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)