Specificity of ArticleMay 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 reportThe 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 UpWow 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)
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 scapegoatedCurrently 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)
length of illnessthe 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) DietI 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:. PMID 17475634. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Is this the same?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, 2007I 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) ContagiousNot 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)
| |