ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Retrospective cross-sectional study on bronchiectasis in adult Aboriginal Australians: disease characteristics and comparison with ethnically diverse global bronchiectasis registry cohorts.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closing the gap - lung cancer evaluation and treatment among indigenous and non-indigenous patients in the Top End, Northern Territory, Australia.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Fungal-Associated Endotypes as a Treatable Trait in Bronchiectasis.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Review
- Indigenous bronchiectasis assessment scale - the 'IBAS': a proposed new tool to assess bronchiectasis severity in adult Indigenous Australians.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Turning the tide on bronchiectasis in adult Aboriginal Australians: from neglect to action.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Sputum antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and clinical outcomes among adult Aboriginal Australians with bronchiectasis.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
- Prevalence of bronchiectasis: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, adult Indigenous people, including Aboriginal Australians, have a high burden of chronic respiratory disorders, and bronchiectasis is no exception. However, literature detailing bronchiectasis disease characteristics among adult Indigenous people is sparse. This study assessed the clinical profile of bronchiectasis among adult Aboriginal Australians and compared against previously published international bronchiectasis registry reports.
methodsAboriginal Australians aged >18 years with chest CT confirmed bronchiectasis between 2011 and 2020 in the Top End Northern Territory of Australia were included. Demographics, chest CT findings, pulmonary function results, sputum microbiology, coexistent medical comorbidities, and pharmacotherapy use were assessed and compared against five published international bronchiectasis registry reports (Australian (ABR), European (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC)-Europe), Indian (EMBARC-India), Korean (KMBARC) and the USA (USBRR)).
resultsA total of 459 patients were assessed. In comparison with international and non-Aboriginal Australian national cohorts, Aboriginal Australians were younger (median 56 years (IQR (48, 65)); however, sex distribution (55% female) and body mass index (23 kg/m
conclusionThe overall bronchiectasis disease burden is higher in Aboriginal Australian adults in comparison with global ethnically diverse non-Indigenous populations. Further efforts are required to address this disparity secondary to bronchiectasis among Indigenous people.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.