European Respiratory Society statement on airway clearance techniques in adults with bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are part of the main management strategy for patients with bronchiectasis. Despite being a priority for patients, accessibility, implementation and reporting of ACTs are variable in clinical settings and research studies. This European Respiratory Society statement summarises current knowledge about ACTs in adults with bronchiectasis and makes recommendations to improve the future evidence base. A task force of 14 experts and two patient representatives (10 countries) determined the scope of this statement through consensus and defined six questions. The questions were answered based on systematic searches of the literature. The statement provides a comprehensive review of the physiological rationale for ACTs in adults with bronchiectasis, and the mechanisms of action along with the advantages and disadvantages of each ACT. Evidence on ACTs in clinical practice indicates that the most frequently used techniques are active cycle of breathing techniques, positive expiratory pressure devices and gravity-assisted drainage, although there is limited evidence on the type of ACTs used in specific countries. A review of 30 randomised trials for the effectiveness of ACTs shows that these interventions increase sputum clearance during or after treatment, reduce the impact of cough and the risk of exacerbations, and improve health-related quality of life. Furthermore, strategies for reducing the risk of bias in future studies are proposed. Finally, an exploration of patients' perceptions, barriers and enablers related to this treatment is also included to facilitate implementation and adherence to ACTs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".