systematic literature review vs narrative literature review

About Systematic Reviews

The Difference Between Narrative Review and Systematic Review

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

Reviews in scientific research are tools that help synthesize literature on a topic of interest and describe its current state. Different types of reviews are conducted depending on the research question and the scope of the review. A systematic review is one such review that is robust, reproducible, and transparent. It involves collating evidence by using all of the eligible and critically appraised literature available on a certain topic. To know more about how to do a systematic review , you can check out our article at the link. The primary aim of a systematic review is to recommend best practices and inform policy development. Hence, there is a need for high-quality, focused, and precise methods and reporting. For more exploratory research questions, methods such as a scoping review are employed. Be sure you understand the difference between a systematic review and a scoping review , if you don’t, check out the link to learn more.

When the word “review” alone is used to describe a research paper, the first thing that should come to mind is that it is a literature review. Almost every researcher starts off their career with literature reviews. To know the difference between a systematic review and a literature review , read on here.  Traditional literature reviews are also sometimes referred to as narrative reviews since they use narrative analysis to synthesize data. In this article, we will explore the differences between a systematic review and a narrative review, in further detail.

Learn More About DistillerSR

(Article continues below)

Narrative Review vs Systematic Review

Both systematic and narrative reviews are classified as secondary research studies since they both use existing primary research studies e.g. case studies. Despite this similarity, there are key differences in their methodology and scope. The major differences between them lie in their objectives, methodology, and application areas.

Differences In Objective

The main objective of a systematic review is to formulate a well-defined research question and use qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze all the available evidence attempting to answer the question. In contrast, narrative reviews can address one or more questions with a much broader scope. The efficacy of narrative reviews is irreplaceable in tracking the development of a scientific principle, or a clinical concept. This ability to conduct a wider exploration could be lost in the restrictive framework of a systematic review.

Differences in Methodology

For systematic reviews, there are guidelines provided by the Cochrane Handbook, ROSES, and the PRISMA statement that can help determine the protocol, and methodology to be used. However, for narrative reviews, such standard guidelines do not exist. Although, there are recommendations available.

Systematic reviews comprise an explicit, transparent, and pre-specified methodology. The methodology followed in a systematic review is as follows,

• Formulating the clinical research question to answer (PICO approach)
• Developing a protocol (with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of primary studies)
• Performing a detailed and broad literature search
• Critical appraisal of the selected studies
• Data extraction from the primary studies included in the review
• Data synthesis and analysis using qualitative or quantitative methods [3].
• Reporting and discussing results of data synthesis.
• Developing conclusions based on the findings.

A narrative review on the other hand does not have a strict protocol to be followed. The design of the review depends on its author and the objectives of the review. As yet, there is no consensus on the standard structure of a narrative review. The preferred approach is the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) [2]. Apart from the author’s preferences, a narrative review structure must respect the journal style and conventions followed in the respective field.

Differences in Application areas

Narrative reviews are aimed at identifying and summarizing what has previously been published. Their general applications include exploring existing debates, the appraisal of previous studies conducted on a certain topic, identifying knowledge gaps, and speculating on the latest interventions available. They are also used to track and report on changes that have occurred in an existing field of research. The main purpose is to deepen the understanding in a certain research area. The results of a systematic review provide the most valid evidence to guide clinical decision-making and inform policy development [1]. They have now become the gold standard in evidence-based medicine [1].

Although both types of reviews come with their own benefits and limitations, researchers should carefully consider the differences between them before making a decision on which review type to use.

• Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. AJN. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.
• Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropratic Medicine 2006;5:101–117.
• Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL, Fernández-Pello S, Hevia V, Mayor J, et al. Metodología de una revisión sistemática. Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42:499–506.

3 Reasons to Connect

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Systematic Review Process: Types of Reviews

• Definitions of a Systematic Review

Types of Reviews

• Systematic Review Planning Process
• Resources Needed to Conduct a Review
• Reporting Guidelines
• Where to Search
• How to Search
• Screening and Study Selection
• Data Extraction
• Appraisal and Analysis
• Citation Management
• Additional Resources: Guides and Books
• Using Covidence for Your Systematic Review
• Librarian Collaboration

Narrative vs. Systematic Reviews

People often confuse systematic and literature (narrative) reviews. They both are used to provide a summary of the existing literature or research on a specific topic.

A narrative or traditional literature review is a comprehensive, critical, and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic. They are an essential part of the research process and help to establish a theoretical framework and focus or context for your research. A literature review will help you to identify patterns and trends in the literature so that you can identify gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. This should lead you to a sufficiently focused research question that justifies your research.

A systematic review is comprehensive and has minimal bias. It is based on a specific question and uses eligibility criteria and a pre-planned protocol. This type of study evaluates the quality of evidence. 

A systematic review can be either quantitative or qualitative:

• If quantitative, the review will include studies that have numerical data.
• If qualitative, the review derives data from observation, interviews, or verbal interactions and focuses on the meanings and interpretations of the participants. It will include focus groups, interviews, observations and diaries.

Narrative reviews in comparison provide a perspective on topic (like a textbook chapter), may have no specified search strategy, might have significant bias issues, and may not evaluate quality of evidence.

This table provides a detailed comparison of systematic and literature (narrative) reviews.

Tools to Help You Choose a Review Type

There are other comprehensive literature reviews of similar methodology to the systematic review. These tools can help you determine which type of review you may want to conduct. 

• The Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT) is a chart created as an adaptation of Andrew Booth's article on review typology. The chart that describes the features of multiple review types listing characteristics that distinguish each type and including sample of each type of review.
• The What Review is Right for You tool asks five short questions to help you identify the most appropriate method for a review.

Use this chart  to determine the type of review you are interested in writing and to learn the differences in the stages and processes of various reviews compared to systematic reviews.

Source: Yale University

The type of review you conduct will depend on the purpose of the review, your question, your resources, expertise, and type of data.

Here are two suggested articles to consult if you want to know more about review types:

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.   Health information & libraries journal ,  26 (2), 91-108. This article defines 14 types of reviews. There is a helpful summary table on pp.94-95

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A.  Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.   Health information & libraries journal . 2019;36(3):202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276

This Comparison table is derived from a guide which is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license , and was originally included in a workbook by Amanda Wanner at Plymouth University for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews. Stephanie Roth at Temple University remixed the original version. Many thanks and much appreciation to Amanda Wanner and Stephanie Roth for allowing me to create a derivative of their work.

Funaro, M., Nyhan, K., & Brackett, A. (n.d.).   What type of review could you write?  Yale Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library.

• << Previous: Definitions of a Systematic Review
• Next: Systematic Review Planning Process >>
• Last Updated: Jul 1, 2024 9:51 AM
• URL: https://library.aah.org/guides/systematicreview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to Conduct a Systematic Review: A Narrative Literature Review

Affiliations.

• 1 Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Chicago.
• 2 Psychiatry, KVC Prairie Ridge Hospital.
• 3 Department of Psychiatry, Bronx Lebanon Hospital Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Bronx, NY.
• 4 Psychiatry, Suny Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
• PMID: 27924252
• PMCID: PMC5137994
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.864

Systematic reviews are ranked very high in research and are considered the most valid form of medical evidence. They provide a complete summary of the current literature relevant to a research question and can be of immense use to medical professionals. Our goal with this paper is to conduct a narrative review of the literature about systematic reviews and outline the essential elements of a systematic review along with the limitations of such a review.

Keywords: meta-analysis; narrative literature review; prisma checklist; systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

• PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research. Kapadia MZ, Askie L, Hartling L, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D, Bhutta ZA, Soll R, Moher D, Offringa M. Kapadia MZ, et al. BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 18;6(4):e010270. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010270. BMJ Open. 2016. PMID: 27091820 Free PMC article.
• Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Aromataris E, et al. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015. PMID: 26360830
• Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: methodological approaches to evaluate the literature and establish best evidence. Skelly AC, Hashimoto RE, Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Fischer DJ, Wilson JR, Tetreault LA, Fehlings MG. Skelly AC, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S9-18. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7ebbf. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013. PMID: 24026148
• Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA statement guidelines: Review of literature. Akhigbe T, Zolnourian A, Bulters D. Akhigbe T, et al. J Clin Neurosci. 2017 May;39:45-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.016. Epub 2017 Feb 27. J Clin Neurosci. 2017. PMID: 28246008 Review.
• Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Wong G, et al. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Sep. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Sep. PMID: 25642521 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• Benefits, barriers and recommendations for youth engagement in health research: combining evidence-based and youth perspectives. Bailey K, Allemang B, Vandermorris A, Munce S, Cleverley K, Chisholm C, Cohen E, Davidson C, El Galad A, Leibovich D, Lowthian T, Pillainayagam J, Ramesh H, Samson A, Senthilnathan V, Siska P, Snider M, Toulany A. Bailey K, et al. Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Sep 2;10(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00607-w. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 39223602 Free PMC article. Review.
• Protocol to develop strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Village Health Workers in service delivery in a selected district of Zimbabwe. Munyai O, Mudau AG, Mashau NS. Munyai O, et al. MethodsX. 2024 Jul 5;13:102850. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.102850. eCollection 2024 Dec. MethodsX. 2024. PMID: 39101124 Free PMC article.
• Role of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Periodontitis: A Bidirectional Relationship. Vegda HS, Patel B, Girdhar GA, Pathan MSH, Ahmad R, Haque M, Sinha S, Kumar S. Vegda HS, et al. Cureus. 2024 Jul 3;16(7):e63775. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63775. eCollection 2024 Jul. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39100036 Free PMC article. Review.
• Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Network Medicine Perspective. Benincasa G, Napoli C, DeMeo DL. Benincasa G, et al. Matern Child Health J. 2024 Apr;28(4):617-630. doi: 10.1007/s10995-023-03886-z. Epub 2024 Feb 26. Matern Child Health J. 2024. PMID: 38409452 Review.
• Narrative review of telemedicine applications in decentralized research. Cummins MR, Soni H, Ivanova J, Ong T, Barrera J, Wilczewski H, Welch B, Bunnell BE. Cummins MR, et al. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Jan 22;8(1):e30. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.3. eCollection 2024. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024. PMID: 38384915 Free PMC article. Review.
• What is a literature review? University of Missouri Libraries. http://libraryguides.missouri.edu/literaturereview to Literature Reviews. 2016
• The literature review. University of Southern California Libraries. Literature Literature. http://libguides.usc.edu/c.php?g=235034&p=1559822 Retrieved. 2016
• How to write a systematic review. Wright R, Brand R, Dunn W, Spindler K. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17279036 . Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29. - PubMed
• Antman E, Lau J, Kupelnick B. JAMA. Vol. 268. Association; 1992. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction; pp. 240–248. - PubMed
• Montori V, Swiontkowski M, Cook D. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Vol. 413. Research; 2003. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses; pp. 43–54. - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

Literature review vs. systematic review, your librarian.

It’s common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and literature reviews. 

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. [figshare]. Available at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364

Primary vs. Secondary Research

Parts of the Article

• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 2:30 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

Posted on 3rd February 2016 by Weyinmi Demeyin

Millions of articles are published yearly (1) , making it difficult for clinicians to keep abreast of the literature. Reviews of literature are necessary in order to provide clinicians with accurate, up to date information to ensure appropriate management of their patients. Reviews usually involve summaries and synthesis of primary research findings on a particular topic of interest and can be grouped into 2 main categories; the ‘traditional’ review and the ‘systematic’ review with major differences between them.

Traditional reviews provide a broad overview of a research topic with no clear methodological approach (2) . Information is collected and interpreted unsystematically with subjective summaries of findings. Authors aim to describe and discuss the literature from a contextual or theoretical point of view. Although the reviews may be conducted by topic experts, due to preconceived ideas or conclusions, they could be subject to bias.

Systematic reviews are overviews of the literature undertaken by identifying, critically appraising and synthesising results of primary research studies using an explicit, methodological approach(3). They aim to summarise the best available evidence on a particular research topic.

The main differences between traditional reviews and systematic reviews are summarised below in terms of the following characteristics: Authors, Study protocol, Research question, Search strategy, Sources of literature, Selection criteria, Critical appraisal, Synthesis, Conclusions, Reproducibility, and Update.

Traditional reviews

• Authors: One or more authors usually experts in the topic of interest
• Study protocol: No study protocol
• Research question: Broad to specific question, hypothesis not stated
• Search strategy: No detailed search strategy, search is probably conducted using keywords
• Sources of literature: Not usually stated and non-exhaustive, usually well-known articles. Prone to publication bias
• Selection criteria: No specific selection criteria, usually subjective. Prone to selection bias
• Critical appraisal: Variable evaluation of study quality or method
• Synthesis: Often qualitative synthesis of evidence
• Conclusions: Sometimes evidence based but can be influenced by author’s personal belief
• Reproducibility: Findings cannot be reproduced independently as conclusions may be subjective
• Update: Cannot be continuously updated

Systematic reviews

• Authors: Two or more authors are involved in good quality systematic reviews, may comprise experts in the different stages of the review
• Study protocol: Written study protocol which includes details of the methods to be used
• Research question: Specific question which may have all or some of PICO components (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome). Hypothesis is stated
• Search strategy: Detailed and comprehensive search strategy is developed
• Sources of literature: List of databases, websites and other sources of included studies are listed. Both published and unpublished literature are considered
• Selection criteria: Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Critical appraisal: Rigorous appraisal of study quality
• Synthesis: Narrative, quantitative or qualitative synthesis
• Conclusions: Conclusions drawn are evidence based
• Reproducibility: Accurate documentation of method means results can be reproduced
• Update: Systematic reviews can be periodically updated to include new evidence

Decisions and health policies about patient care should be evidence based in order to provide the best treatment for patients. Systematic reviews provide a means of systematically identifying and synthesising the evidence, making it easier for policy makers and practitioners to assess such relevant information and hopefully improve patient outcomes.

• Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence-Based Approach to the Medical Literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1997; 12(Suppl 2):S5-S14. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.1.x. Available from:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497222/
• Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paul. enferm. [Internet]. 2007 June [cited 2015 Dec 25]; 20(2): v-vi. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-21002007000200001&lng=en. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
• Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2001.

Weyinmi Demeyin

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

THE INFORMATION IS VERY MUCH VALUABLE, A LOT IS INDEED EXPECTED IN ORDER TO MASTER SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Thank you very much for the information here. My question is : Is it possible for me to do a systematic review which is not directed toward patients but just a specific population? To be specific can I do a systematic review on the mental health needs of students?

Hi Rosemary, I wonder whether it would be useful for you to look at Module 1 of the Cochrane Interactive Learning modules. This is a free module, open to everyone (you will just need to register for a Cochrane account if you don’t already have one). This guides you through conducting a systematic review, with a section specifically around defining your research question, which I feel will help you in understanding your question further. Head to this link for more details: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning

I wonder if you have had a search on the Cochrane Library as yet, to see what Cochrane systematic reviews already exist? There is one review, titled “Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students” which may be of interest: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013684/full You can run searches on the library by the population and intervention you are interested in.

I hope these help you start in your investigations. Best wishes. Emma.

La revisión sistemática vale si hay solo un autor?

HI Alex, so sorry for the delay in replying to you. Yes, that is a very good point. I have copied a paragraph from the Cochrane Handbook, here, which does say that for a Cochrane Review, you should have more than one author.

“Cochrane Reviews should be undertaken by more than one person. In putting together a team, authors should consider the need for clinical and methodological expertise for the review, as well as the perspectives of stakeholders. Cochrane author teams are encouraged to seek and incorporate the views of users, including consumers, clinicians and those from varying regions and settings to develop protocols and reviews. Author teams for reviews relevant to particular settings (e.g. neglected tropical diseases) should involve contributors experienced in those settings”.

Thank you for the discussion point, much appreciated.

Hello, I’d like to ask you a question: what’s the difference between systematic review and systematized review? In addition, if the screening process of the review was made by only one author, is still a systematic or is a systematized review? Thanks

Hi. This article from Grant & Booth is a really good one to look at explaining different types of reviews: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x It includes Systematic Reviews and Systematized Reviews. In answer to your second question, have a look at this Chapter from the Cochrane handbook. It covers the question about ‘Who should do a systematic review’. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-01

A really relevant part of this chapter is this: “Systematic reviews should be undertaken by a team. Indeed, Cochrane will not publish a review that is proposed to be undertaken by a single person. Working as a team not only spreads the effort, but ensures that tasks such as the selection of studies for eligibility, data extraction and rating the certainty of the evidence will be performed by at least two people independently, minimizing the likelihood of errors.”

I hope this helps with the question. Best wishes. Emma.

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

What do trialists do about participants who are ‘lost to follow-up’?

Participants in clinical trials may exit the study prior to having their results collated; in this case, what do we do with their results?

Family Therapy approaches for Anorexia Nervosa

Is Family Therapy effective in the treatment of Anorexia Nervosa? Emily summarises a recent Cochrane Review in this blog and examines the evidence.

Antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – at what blood pressure do we start treatment?

In this blog, Giorgio Karam examines the evidence on antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – when do we start treatment?

• Subscriptions
• Advanced search

Advanced Search

A systematic literature review of the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Marcus A. Mall
• ORCID record for Michal Shteinberg
• ORCID record for Sanjay H. Chotirmall
• Figures & Data
• Info & Metrics

Background The overall burden of bronchiectasis on patients and healthcare systems has not been comprehensively described. Here, we present the findings of a systematic literature review that assessed the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis with subanalyses by aetiology (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023404162).

Methods Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications relating to bronchiectasis disease burden (December 2017–December 2022). Journal articles and congress abstracts reporting on observational studies, randomised controlled trials and registry studies were included. Editorials, narrative reviews and systematic literature reviews were included to identify primary studies. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results 1585 unique publications were identified, of which 587 full texts were screened and 149 were included. A further 189 citations were included from reference lists of editorials and reviews, resulting in 338 total publications. Commonly reported symptoms and complications included dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production, haemoptysis and exacerbations. Disease severity across several indices and increased mortality compared with the general population was reported. Bronchiectasis impacted quality of life across several patient-reported outcomes, with patients experiencing fatigue, anxiety and depression. Healthcare resource utilisation was considerable and substantial medical costs related to hospitalisations, treatments and emergency department and outpatient visits were accrued. Indirect costs included sick pay and lost income.

Conclusions Bronchiectasis causes significant clinical and socioeconomic burden. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce both healthcare resource utilisation and overall costs are needed. Further systematic analyses of specific aetiologies and paediatric disease may provide more insight into unmet therapeutic needs.

• Shareable abstract

Bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients, their families and employers, and on healthcare systems. Therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce resource use and overall costs are needed. https://bit.ly/4bPCHlp

• Introduction

Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous chronic respiratory disease clinically characterised by chronic cough, excessive sputum production and recurrent pulmonary exacerbations [ 1 ], and radiologically characterised by the abnormal widening of the bronchi [ 2 ]. Bronchiectasis is associated with several genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders [ 3 ]. Regardless of the underlying cause, the defining features of bronchiectasis are chronic airway inflammation and infection, regionally impaired mucociliary clearance, mucus hypersecretion and mucus obstruction, as well as progressive structural lung damage [ 4 , 5 ]. These features perpetuate one another in a “vicious vortex” leading to a decline in lung function, pulmonary exacerbations and associated morbidity, mortality and worsened quality of life [ 4 , 5 ]. Bronchiectasis can be further categorised into several infective and inflammatory endotypes and is associated with multiple comorbidities and underlying aetiologies [ 6 ].

Bronchiectasis has been described as an emerging global epidemic [ 7 ], with prevalence and incidence rates increasing worldwide [ 8 – 12 ]. The prevalence of bronchiectasis, as well as of the individual aetiologies, varies widely across geographic regions [ 13 ]. In Europe, the reported prevalence ranges from 39.1 (females) and 33.3 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Spain and 68 (females) and 65 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Germany, to as high as 566 cases (females) and 486 cases (males) per 100 000 inhabitants in the UK [ 10 – 12 ]. In the US, the average overall prevalence was reported to be 139 cases per 100 000 [ 14 ], in Israel, the prevalence was reported to be 234 cases per 100 000 [ 15 ], and in China the prevalence was reported to be 174 per 100 000 [ 8 ]. Studies show that bronchiectasis prevalence increases with age [ 14 ]. This may increase the socioeconomic impact of bronchiectasis on countries with disproportionately higher number of older citizens. Large registry studies in patients with bronchiectasis have been published from the US (Bronchiectasis Research Registry) [ 16 ], Europe and Israel (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC)); the largest and most comprehensive report available to date) [ 17 ], India (EMBARC-India) [ 18 , 19 ], Korea (Korean Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration) [ 20 ] and Australia (Australian Bronchiectasis Registry) [ 21 ].

Although there are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis [ 4 ], comprehensive clinical care recommendations for the management of patients with bronchiectasis have been published [ 22 , 23 ]. However, the burden that bronchiectasis imposes on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, payers and employers, remains poorly understood. No review to date has used a systematic method to evaluate the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. This is the first systematic literature review aimed at investigating and synthesising the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis. A better understanding of the overarching burden of bronchiectasis, both overall and by individual aetiologies and associated diseases, will highlight the need for new therapies and assist healthcare systems in planning care and required resources.

The protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (reference number: CRD42023404162).

Search strategy

This systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 24 ]. Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies related to the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis (noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) and cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (CFBE)) using the search terms available in supplementary table S1 . Articles written in English and published over a 5-year period (December 2017–December 2022) were included.

Selection criteria

The following article types reporting on prospective and retrospective observational studies, registry studies and randomised controlled trials (only baseline data extracted) were included: journal articles, preprints, research letters, conference proceedings, conference papers, conference abstracts, meeting abstracts and meeting posters. Reviews, literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as editorials, commentaries, letters and letters to the editor, were included for the purpose of identifying primary studies. A manual search of references cited in selected articles was performed and references were only included if they were published within the 5 years prior to the primary article being published.

Screening and data extraction

A reviewer screened all titles and abstracts to identify publications for full-text review. These publications then underwent full-text screening by the same reviewer for potential inclusion. A second reviewer independently verified the results of both the title/abstract screen and the full-text screen. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data relating to aetiology, symptoms, disease severity, exacerbations, lung function, infection, comorbidities, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), exercise capacity, mortality, impact on family and caregivers, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), treatment burden, medical costs, and indirect impacts and costs, as well as data relating to the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, were extracted from the final set of publications into a standardised Excel spreadsheet by one reviewer. Studies were grouped based on the burden measure, and aggregate data (range of reported values) were summarised in table or figure format. For the economic burden section, costs extracted from studies reporting in currencies other than the euros were converted to euros based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.

Data from patients with specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and in children (age limits varied from study to study and included upper age limits of 15, 18, 19 and 20 years) were reported separately, where available. As literature relating to NCFBE and CFBE is generally distinct, any data related to CFBE are reported separately in the tables and text. We conducted subanalyses of key disease burden indicators, in which we extracted data from multicentre studies or those with a sample size >1000 subjects, to try to identify estimates from the most representative datasets. These data from larger and multicentre studies are reported in square brackets in tables 1 – 3 and supplementary tables S2–S7 , where available.

• View inline

Prevalence and severity of bronchiectasis symptoms overall, in children, during exacerbations and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Patient-reported outcome scores in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Given the nature of the data included in this systematic literature review (that is, a broad range of patient clinical and socioeconomic characteristics rather than the outcome(s) of an intervention), in addition to the broad range of study types included, meta-analyses to statistically combine data of similar studies were not deemed appropriate and therefore not performed.

Summary of included studies

A total of 1834 citations were retrieved from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases, of which 1585 unique citations were identified. Abstract/title screening led to the inclusion of 587 citations for full-text screening. Following full-text screening, 149 primary citations and 110 literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as editorials and letters to the editor remained. From the reference lists of these 110 citations, a further 189 primary citations were identified. These articles were only included if 1) the primary articles contained data relating to the burden of bronchiectasis and 2) the primary articles were published within the 5 years prior to the original article's publication date. In total, 338 publications were considered eligible and included in this review ( supplementary figure S1 ). This included 279 journal articles, 46 congress abstracts and 13 letters to the editor or scientific/research letters. The results are summarised in the sections below. For the results from individual studies, including a description of the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, please see the supplemental Excel file .

The most frequently reported aetiologies included post-infectious, genetic (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) and cystic fibrosis (CF)), airway diseases (COPD and asthma), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), aspiration and reflux-related, immunodeficiency and autoimmune aetiologies ( supplementary figure S2 ). However, in up to 80.7% of adult cases and 53.3% of paediatric cases, the aetiology was not determined (referred to as “idiopathic bronchiectasis”) ( supplementary figure S2 ). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the frequency of idiopathic bronchiectasis ranged from 11.5 to 66.0% in adults and from 16.5 to 29.4% in children. Further details and additional aetiologies can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .

Clinical burden

Symptom burden and severity.

Commonly reported symptoms in patients with bronchiectasis included cough, sputum production, dyspnoea, wheezing and haemoptysis, with these symptoms more prevalent in adults compared with children ( table 1 ). Other reported symptoms included chest discomfort, pain or tightness (both generally and during an exacerbation), fever and weight loss in both adults and children, and fatigue, tiredness or asthenia, appetite loss, and sweating in adults. In children, respiratory distress, hypoxia during an exacerbation, sneezing, nasal and ear discharge, thriving poorly including poor growth and weight loss, exercise intolerance, malaise, night sweats, abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, and diarrhoea were reported ( supplemental Excel file ). Classic bronchiectasis symptoms such as sputum production (range of patients reporting sputum production across all studies: 22.0–92.7%) and cough (range of patients reporting cough across all studies: 24.0–98.5%) were not universally reported ( table 1 ).

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (excluding CFBE) in different age groups (younger adults (18–65 years), older adults (66–75 years) and elderly adults (≥76 years) [ 63 ]), no significant differences across age groups were reported for the presence of cough (younger adults: 73.9%; older adults: 72.8%; elderly adults: 72.9%; p=0.90), sputum production (younger adults: 57.8%; older adults: 63.8%; elderly adults: 6.0%; p=0.16) or haemoptysis (younger adults: 16.5%; older adults: 19.3%; elderly adults: 16.3%; p=0.47).

Disease severity

Disease severity was reported according to several measures including the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI), the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), Age, Chronic Colonisation, Extension, Dyspnoea (FACED) score and the Exacerbations-FACED (E-FACED) score, all of which are known to be associated with future exacerbations, hospitalisations and mortality ( supplementary table S2 and the supplemental Excel file ). Up to 78.7, 41.8 and 40.8% of patients with bronchiectasis reported severe disease according to the BSI, FACED score and E-FACED score, respectively ( supplementary table S2 ). In most studies, severity scores were greater among people with bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or post-tuberculosis (TB) than idiopathic bronchiectasis ( supplementary table S2 ). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically.

Exacerbations

The number of exacerbations experienced by patients with bronchiectasis in the previous year, per year and during follow-up are presented in figure 1 . For further details, please see the supplemental Excel file . Two studies reported exacerbation length in patients with bronchiectasis; this ranged from 11 to 16 days (both small studies; sample sizes of 191 and 32, respectively) [ 25 , 64 ]. A study in children with NCFBE reported a median of one exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, the same study reported that 31.1% of children with bronchiectasis experienced ≥3 exacerbations per year [ 65 ].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Range of bronchiectasis exacerbations in the previous year, per year and in the first and second years of follow-up. # : Two studies reported significant differences in the number of exacerbations experienced in the previous year across individual aetiologies. Study 1 [ 90 ]: Patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis had significantly fewer exacerbations in the previous year compared with other aetiologies (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), COPD and post-infectious) (p<0.021). Study 2 [ 33 ]: significant difference between post-tuberculosis (TB) bronchiectasis (mean: 2.8) and other aetiologies excluding idiopathic bronchiectasis (mean: 1.7) (p<0.05).

Lung function

Reduced lung function was reported across several different measures in adults and children with bronchiectasis overall, including FEV 1 (absolute values and % predicted), forced vital capacity (FVC; absolute values and % pred) and lung clearance index (adults only) ( supplementary table S3 and the supplemental Excel file ). In most studies, lung function was lowest among people with post-TB bronchiectasis and bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or PCD ( supplementary table S2 ). Additional measures of lung function are detailed in the supplemental Excel file . Lung clearance index, considered more sensitive than spirometry to early airway damage, was elevated in two studies in adults with bronchiectasis, with a range of 9.0–12.8 (normal: 6–7 or less) [ 66 , 67 ].

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, elderly adults (≥76 years) had significantly lower FEV 1 % pred (median: 67) compared with both younger (18–65 years; median: 78) and older adults (66–75 years; median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ]. FVC % pred was found to be significantly lower in elderly adults (mean: 65) compared with both younger adults (median: 78) and older adults (median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ].

Chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 22.3–79.6% of patients with bronchiectasis, although each study defined chronic infection differently (number of studies: 20). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 10.7–54.5% of patients with bronchiectasis (number of studies: 12). In two studies in NCFBE, significant differences in the proportion of patients chronically infected with at least one pathogen were reported across aetiologies (p<0.001 for both studies) [ 68 , 69 ]. Patients with post-infectious (other than TB) bronchiectasis (34.9%) [ 68 ] and patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis (68.3%) [ 69 ] had the highest prevalence of chronic infection.

The most commonly reported bacterial and fungal pathogens are shown in supplementary table S4 . The two most common bacterial pathogens were Pseudomonas ( P .) aeruginosa and Haemophilus ( H. ) influenzae . In several studies, more patients with PCD, TB and COPD as the aetiology of their bronchiectasis reported infection with P. aeruginosa . Additionally, in one study, significantly more children with CFBE had P. aeruginosa infection compared with children with NCFBE [ 70 ]. Further details and additional pathogens are reported in the supplemental Excel file .

Diversity of the sputum microbiome was assessed in two studies. In the first study in people with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), reduced microbiome alpha diversity (defined as the relative abundance of microbial species within a sample), particularly associated with Pseudomonas or Proteobacteria dominance, was associated with greater disease severity, increased frequency and severity of exacerbations, and a higher risk of mortality [ 71 ]. In the second study (unknown whether people with CFBE were excluded), a lower Shannon–Wiener diversity index (a measure of species diversity, with lower scores indicating lower diversity) score was associated with multiple markers of disease severity, including a higher BSI score (p=0.0003) and more frequent exacerbations (p=0.008) [ 72 ].

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years) [ 63 ], chronic infection with H. influenzae was reported in 18.3% of younger adults, 12.8% of older adults and 8.8% of elderly adults, and chronic infection with Streptococcus ( Str. ) pneumoniae was reported in 5.3% of younger adults, 2.8% of older adults and 1.3% of elderly adults. For both of the above, the prevalence was significantly higher in younger adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017 for both comparisons). However, no significant differences across age groups were reported for P. aeruginosa , Moraxella catarrhalis or Staphylococcus ( Sta .) aureus chronic infection.

P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with reduced FEV 1 [ 73 ], more severe disease [ 74 ], more frequent exacerbations [ 35 , 49 , 75 , 76 ], increased hospital admissions, reduced quality of life based on St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and increased and 4-year mortality [ 49 , 76 ]. Additionally, in a study reporting healthcare use and costs in the US between 2007–2013, healthcare costs and hospitalisation costs were found to be increased in patients infected with P. aeruginosa ($56 499 and $41 972 more than patients not infected with P. aeruginosa , respectively) [ 77 ]. In the same study, HCRU was also higher in patients infected with P. aeruginosa (fivefold increase in the number of hospitalisations and 84% more emergency department (ED) visits compared with patients not infected with P. aeruginosa ) [ 77 ].

Comorbidities

The most frequently reported comorbidities included cardiovascular (including heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and hypertension), respiratory (including asthma, COPD and sinusitis), metabolic (including diabetes and dyslipidaemia), malignancy (including haematological and solid malignancies), bone and joint-related (including osteoporosis and rheumatological disease), neurological (including anxiety and depression), renal, hepatic, and gastrointestinal comorbidities ( supplementary table S5 ). No data relating to comorbidities were reported for CFBE specifically. For further details and additional comorbidities, please see the supplemental Excel file .

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), younger adults had a significantly lower prevalence of diabetes compared with older adults, a significantly lower prevalence of stroke compared with elderly adults and a significantly lower prevalence of heart failure, solid tumours and renal failure compared with both older and elderly adults (p<0.0017 for all comparisons). Additionally, the prevalence of COPD was significantly lower in both younger and older adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017) [ 63 ]. In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, the prevalence of comorbid asthma ranged from 22.2 to 25.8% [ 65 , 78 ] and the prevalence of sinusitis was reported to be 12.7% in a single study [ 79 ].

Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)

CCI scores can range from 0 to 37, with higher scores indicating a decreased estimate of 10-year survival. In this review, CCI scores ranged from 0.7 to 6.6 in studies reporting means (number of studies: 7). In one study, adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) who experienced ≥2 exacerbations per year were found to have significantly higher CCI scores (3.3) compared with patients who experienced less than two exacerbations per year (2.2) (p=0.001) [ 35 ]. In another study in adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), CCI scores increased significantly with increasing disease severity, with patients with mild (FACED score of 0–2), moderate (FACED score of 3–4) and severe (FACED score of 5–7) bronchiectasis reporting mean CCI scores of 3.9, 5.7 and 6.3, respectively [ 80 ]. No CCI scores were reported for CFBE specifically.

Prevalence of comorbidities in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

Several studies reported a higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities. such as heart failure [ 81 ], stroke [ 82 , 83 ] and hypertension [ 82 – 84 ] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with a matched general population or healthy controls. Conversely, several additional studies reported no significant differences [ 81 , 85 , 86 ]. Two large studies reported an increased prevalence of diabetes in patients with bronchiectasis compared with nonbronchiectasis control groups [ 83 , 84 ]; however, three additional smaller studies reported no significant differences [ 81 , 82 , 86 ]. The prevalence of gastro–oesophageal reflux disease was found to be significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls in one study [ 87 ], but no significant difference was reported in a second study [ 85 ]. Both anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched healthy controls in one study [ 55 ]. Lastly, two large studies reported an increased prevalence of asthma [ 84 , 87 ] and five studies reported a significantly higher prevalence of COPD [ 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 87 ] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls or the general population. A smaller study reported conflicting evidence whereby no significant difference in the prevalence of asthma in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched controls was reported [ 85 ].

Socioeconomic burden

Patient-reported outcomes.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue, anxiety and depression were reported across several PRO measures and domains. The most frequently reported PROs are discussed in further detail in the sections below ( table 2 ). Further details and additional PROs can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), the median SGRQ total score was significantly higher in elderly adults (50.8) compared with younger adults (36.1), indicating a higher degree of limitation (p=0.017) [ 63 ].

In a study that reported Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores in men and women with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) separately, women had significantly lower LCQ total scores (14.9) when compared with men (17.5) (p=0.006), indicating worse quality of life [ 88 ]. Additionally, women had significantly lower scores across all three LCQ domains (p=0.014, p=0.005 and p=0.011 for physical, psychological and social domains, respectively) [ 88 ].

Exercise capacity

Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis was reported using walking tests namely the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) ( supplementary table S6 ). The 6MWT data from patients with bronchiectasis generally fell within the normal range for healthy people; however, the ISWT data was below the normal range for healthy people ( supplementary table S6 ). Studies also reported on daily physical activity, daily sedentary time and number of steps per day in patients with bronchiectasis, and in children specifically ( supplementary table S6 ). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically. Further details can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .

Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

In one study, the ISWT distance was reported to be significantly lower in patients with NCFBE compared with healthy controls (592.6 m versus 882.9 m; difference of ∼290 m; p<0.001) [ 89 ]. Additionally, patients with bronchiectasis spent significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity compared with healthy controls (p=0.030 and 0.044, respectively) [ 89 ]. Lastly, a study reported that patients with NCFBE had a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls (p<0.001) [ 89 ].

Mortality rate during study period

Mortality ranged from 0.24 to 67.6%; however, it should be noted that the study duration differed across studies. When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the mortality rate ranged from 0.24 to 28.1%. One study reported more deaths in patients with NCFBE (9.1%; 5.9-year mean follow-up period) compared with patients without bronchiectasis (0.8%; 5.4-year mean follow-up period) [ 84 ]. In one study, significantly more patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis died (37.5%) compared with other aetiologies (19.0%) (3.4-year mean follow-up period; p<0.001). After adjusting for several factors, multivariate analysis showed that the diagnosis of COPD as the primary cause of bronchiectasis increased the risk of death by 1.77 compared with the patients with other aetiologies [ 41 ]. Similarly, in another study, COPD-associated bronchiectasis was associated with higher mortality (55%) in multivariate analysis as compared with other aetiologies (rheumatic disease: 20%; post-infectious: 16%; idiopathic: 14%; ABPA: 13%; immunodeficiency: 11%) (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% CI 1.04–4.30; p=0.038; 5.2-year median follow-up period) [ 90 ].

Mortality rates by year

The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year mortality rates in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) ranged from 0.0 to 12.3%, 0.0 to 13.0%, 0.0 to 21.0%, 5.5 to 39.1% and 12.4 to 53.0%, respectively (number of studies: 9, 4, 7, 1 and 4, respectively). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates ranges were 0.4–7.9%, 3.9–13.0%, 3.7–21.0% and 12.4–53.0% (no 4-year mortality data from larger or multicentre studies). No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.

Two studies reported mortality rate by bronchiectasis aetiology (people with CFBE excluded). In the first study, no significant difference in the 4-year mortality rate was reported across aetiologies (p=0.7; inflammatory bowel disease: 14.3%; post-TB: 13.4%; rheumatoid arthritis: 11.4%; idiopathic or post-infectious: 10.1%; ABPA: 6.1%; other aetiologies: 6.1%) [ 49 ]. In the second study, patients with post-TB bronchiectasis had a significantly higher 5-year mortality rate (30.0%) compared with patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis (18.0%) and other aetiologies (10.0%) (p<0.05 for both comparisons) [ 32 ].

In-hospital and intensive care unit mortality

In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.9 to 59.3% in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) hospitalised for an exacerbation or for other reasons (number of studies: 7). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, in-hospital mortality rate was reported in only one study (33.0%). One study reported mortality in bronchiectasis patients admitted to a tertiary care centre according to aetiology; in-hospital mortality was highest in patients with post-pneumonia bronchiectasis (15.8%), followed by patients with idiopathic (7.1%) and post-TB (2.6%) bronchiectasis. No deaths were reported in patients with COPD, ABPA or PCD aetiologies [ 42 ]. Intensive care unit mortality was reported in two studies and ranged from 24.6 to 36.1% [ 62 , 91 ]. No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.

Impact on family and caregivers

Only two studies discussed the impact that having a child with bronchiectasis has on parents/caregivers. In the first study, parents of children with bronchiectasis (not specified whether children with CFBE were excluded) were more anxious and more depressed according to both the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Centre of Epidemiological Studies depression scale, compared with parents of children without any respiratory conditions (both p<0.001; sample size of 29 participants) [ 53 ]. In the second study, parents or carers of children with bronchiectasis (multicentre study with a sample size of 141 participants; children with CFBE excluded) were asked to vote for their top five greatest concerns or worries; the most common worries or concerns that were voted for by over 15% of parents were “impact on his/her adult life in the future, long-term effects, normal life” (29.8%), “ongoing declining health” (25.5%), “the cough” (24.8%), “impact on his/her life now as a child (play, development)” (24.1%), “lack of sleep/being tired” (24.1%), “concerns over aspects of antibiotic use” (22.7%), “missing school or daycare” (17.7%) and “breathing difficulties/shortness of breath” (16.3%) [ 92 ].

HCRU in terms of hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits and length of stay overall and by bronchiectasis aetiology are reported in table 3 . No data relating to HCRU were reported for CFBE specifically.

In a study in children with bronchiectasis (children with CFBE excluded), 30.0% of children were hospitalised at least once in the previous year [ 65 ]. The median number of hospitalisations per year was 0 (interquartile range: 0–1) [ 65 ]. In another study, the mean length of hospital stay for children with bronchiectasis was 6.7 days (standard deviation: 4.8 days) [ 93 ]. In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, significantly more elderly adults (≥76 years; 26.0%) were hospitalised at least once during the first year of follow-up compared with younger adults (18–65 years; 17.0%) and older adults (66–75 years; 17.0%) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ]. Additionally, length of stay was found to be significantly longer in male patients (mean: 17.6 days) compared with female patients (mean: 12.5 days) (p=0.03) [ 94 ].

HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

Length of stay was found to be 38% higher in patients with bronchiectasis (mean: 15.4 days; people with CFBE excluded) compared with patients with any other respiratory illness (mean: 9.6 days) (p<0.001) [ 94 ]. In a study reporting on HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) over a 3-year period (Germany; 2012–2015) [ 85 ], a mean of 24.7 outpatient appointments per patient were reported; there was no significant difference in the number of outpatient appointments between patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (patients without bronchiectasis matched by age, sex and distribution, and level of comorbidities) (mean: 23.4) (p=0.12). When assessing specific outpatient appointments over the 3-year period, patients with bronchiectasis attended a mean of 9.2 general practitioner appointments, 2.9 radiology appointments, 2.5 chest physician appointments and 0.8 cardiologist appointments. Patients with bronchiectasis had significantly fewer general practitioner appointments compared with matched controls (mean: 9.8) (p=0.002); however, they had significantly more radiology appointments (mean for matched controls: 2.3) and chest physician appointments (mean for matched controls: 1.4) compared with matched controls (p<0.001 for both comparisons).

Hospital admission rates

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the crude hospital admission rate in 2013 was 88.4 (95% CI 74.0–105.6) per 100 000 person-years [ 91 ]. In New Zealand (2008–2013), the crude and adjusted hospital admission rates were 25.7 and 20.4 per 100 000 population, respectively [ 95 ]. Lastly, in Australia and New Zealand (2004–2008) the hospital admission rate ranged from 0.7 to 2.9 per person-year [ 96 ]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded.

Treatment burden

In two studies, the percentage of patients with bronchiectasis receiving any respiratory medication at baseline ranged from 60.8 to 85.7% [ 97 , 98 ]. Additionally, in a study comparing healthcare costs in patients with bronchiectasis before and after confirmation of P. aeruginosa infection, mean pharmacy visits in the year preceding diagnosis were reported to be 23.2; this increased significantly by 56.5% to 36.2 in the year post-diagnosis (p<0.0001) [ 99 ]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis were prescribed a mean of 12 medications for bronchiectasis and other comorbidities [ 100 ]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded. The most frequently reported respiratory treatments can be seen in supplementary table S7 . These included antibiotics (including macrolides), corticosteroids, bronchodilators, mucolytics and oxygen. No treatment data were reported for CFBE specifically. Other respiratory treatments included saline, anticholinergics and leukotriene receptor antagonists ( supplemental Excel file ).

In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, 23.9% of children were receiving any bronchodilator at baseline [ 101 ], 9.0–21.7% of children were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at baseline [ 101 , 102 ], 4.3% of children were receiving oral corticosteroids at baseline [ 101 ] and 12.1% of children were receiving long-term oxygen therapy [ 103 ].

Medical and nonmedical indirect impacts and costs

Medical costs for bronchiectasis included overall costs, hospitalisation costs, ED visits and outpatient visit costs and costs of treatment; indirect impacts and costs included sick leave and sick pay, missed work and income loss for caregivers, and missed school or childcare for children ( table 4 and the supplemental Excel file ). People with CFBE were excluded from all of the studies in table 4 below. In studies reporting in currencies other than the €, costs were converted to € based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.

Bronchiectasis-related medical costs and indirect impacts and costs (individual studies)

No review to date has systematically evaluated the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. Here, we present the first systematic literature review that comprehensively describes the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis overall and across individual aetiologies and associated diseases. A total of 338 publications were included in the final analysis. Together, the results indicate that the burden of clinically significant bronchiectasis on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, is substantial, highlighting the urgent need for new disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis.

Bronchiectasis is associated with genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders. However, in many patients with bronchiectasis, an underlying aetiology cannot be identified (idiopathic bronchiectasis) [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. This is supported by the results of this systematic literature review, in which up to 80.7% of patients were reported to have idiopathic bronchiectasis. The results are in line with those reported in a systematic literature review of bronchiectasis aetiology conducted by G ao et al. [ 13 ] (studies from Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa and Oceania included) in which an idiopathic aetiology was reported in approximately 45% of patients with bronchiectasis, with a range of 5–82%. The maximum of 80.7% of patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis identified by this systematic literature review is much higher than in the recent report on the disease characteristics of the EMBARC where idiopathic bronchiectasis was the most common aetiology and reported in only ∼38% of patients with bronchiectasis [ 17 ]. This highlights the importance of sample size and geographic variation (80.7% reported from a single-country study with a small sample size versus ∼38% reported from a continent-wide study with a large sample size). Nevertheless, identifying the underlying aetiology is a recommendation of bronchiectasis guidelines as this can considerably alter the clinical management and prognosis [ 23 , 110 ]. Specific therapeutic interventions may be required for specific aetiologies, such as ICS for people with asthma-related bronchiectasis, antifungal treatment for those with ABPA-associated bronchiectasis and immunoglobulin replacement therapy for those with common variable immunodeficiency-related bronchiectasis [ 23 , 111 ]. Indeed, an observational study has shown that identification of the underlying aetiology affected management in 37% of people with bronchiectasis [ 112 ]. Future studies to determine the impact of identifying the underlying aetiology on management and prognosis are needed to fully understand its importance.

Patients with bronchiectasis experienced a significant symptom burden, with dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production and haemoptysis reported most commonly. These symptoms were also reported in children with bronchiectasis at slightly lower frequencies. Dealing with bronchiectasis symptoms are some of the greatest concerns from a patient's perspective. In a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to deal with, sputum, dyspnoea and cough were the first, fifth and sixth most common answers, respectively [ 113 ]. Some aetiologies were reported to have a higher prevalence of certain symptoms. For example, in single studies, patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of cough and wheezing [ 39 ], patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of sputum production [ 41 ], and patients with post-TB bronchiectasis were found to have a higher prevalence of haemoptysis [ 30 ] compared with other aetiologies. Together, these results highlight the need for novel treatments that reduce the symptom burden of bronchiectasis. They also highlight the importance of teaching patients to perform and adhere to regular nonpharmacological interventions, such as airway clearance using physiotherapy techniques, which have been shown to improve cough-related health status and chronic sputum production [ 110 ]. Future studies assessing when airway clearance techniques should be started, and which ones are the most effective, are a research priority [ 113 ].

The burden of exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis was high, with patients experiencing three or more exacerbations in the previous year (up to 73.6%), per year (up to 55.6%) or in the first year of follow-up (up to 32.4%). Few studies reported significant differences between aetiologies. Importantly, exacerbations are the second-most concerning aspect of bronchiectasis from the patient's perspective [ 113 ]. Patients with frequent exacerbations have more frequent hospitalisations and increased 5-year mortality [ 114 ] and exacerbations are also associated with poorer quality of life [ 114 , 115 ]. Therefore, prevention of exacerbations is of great importance in the management of bronchiectasis [ 116 ]. The exact cause of exacerbations in bronchiectasis (believed to be multifactorial) is not fully understood due a lack of mechanistic studies [ 116 ]. Future studies into the causes and risk factors for exacerbations [ 113 ] may lead to improvements in their prevention.

Many patients with bronchiectasis, including children, experienced chronic infections with bacterial pathogens such as P. aeruginosa , H. influenzae , Sta. aureus and Str. pneumoniae as well as non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Importantly, P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with more severe disease, reduced lung function and quality of life, and increased exacerbations, hospital admission, morality, HCRU and healthcare costs. Due to the clear and consistent association between P. aeruginosa and poor outcomes, patients with chronic P. aeruginosa colonisation should be considered to be at a higher risk of bronchiectasis-related complications [ 110 ]. Additionally, regular sputum microbiology screening should be performed in people with clinically significant bronchiectasis to detect new isolation of P. aeruginosa [ 110 ]; in which case, patients should be offered eradication antibiotic treatment [ 23 ]. Eradication of P. aeruginosa is not only of clinical importance, but also of economic importance due to the associated HCRU and healthcare costs. As such, a better understanding of the key factors leading to P. aeruginosa infection is a priority for future research [ 113 ].

Bronchiectasis markedly impacted HRQoL across several PROs including the SGRQ, Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis score, LCQ, COPD Assessment Test and Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire. In children with bronchiectasis, significantly lower quality of life (according to the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory score) compared with age-matched controls was reported [ 53 ]. The majority of studies reporting HRQoL in individual aetiologies and associated diseases either reported in a single aetiology, did not perform any statistical analyses to compare aetiologies, or reported no significant differences across aetiologies. Patients also experienced mild-to-moderate anxiety and depression according to the HADS-Anxiety, HADS-Depression and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire scores, with very limited data reported in individual aetiologies. When compared with healthy controls, anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis [ 55 ]. Additionally, exercise capacity was reduced, with patients with bronchiectasis reported to spend significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity and have a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls [ 89 ]. Improvements in anxiety, depression and exercise capacity are important priorities for people with bronchiectasis; in a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to manage, “not feeling fit for daily activities”, anxiety and depression were the fourth, eighth and ninth most common answers, respectively [ 113 ].

The studies relating to HCRU and costs in this review were heterogeneous in terms of methodology, time period, country and currency, making them challenging to compare. Nevertheless, this study found that HCRU was substantial, with patients reporting a maximum of 1.3 hospitalisation, 1.3 ED and 21.0 outpatient visits per year. Length of stay was found to be significantly longer in patients with bronchiectasis compared with patients with any other respiratory illness in one study [ 91 ]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis reported significantly more specialist appointments (radiologist appointments and chest physician appointments) compared with matched controls [ 85 ]. Patients with bronchiectasis also experienced a significant treatment burden, with up to 36.4, 58.0 and 83.0% of patients receiving long-term inhaled antibiotics, oral antibiotics and macrolides, respectively, up to 80.4% receiving long-term ICS and up to 61.7% and 81.4% receiving long-term long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta agonists, respectively. Wide ranges of treatment use were reported in this study, which may reflect geographic variation in treatment patterns. Heterogeneous treatment patterns across Europe were observed in the EMBARC registry data with generally higher medication use in the UK and Northern/Western Europe and lower medication use in Eastern Europe (inhaled antibiotics: 1.8–8.9%; macrolides: 0.9–24.4%; ICS: 37.2–58.5%; long-acting beta agonists: 42.7–52.8%; long-acting muscarinic antagonists: 26.5–29.8%) [ 17 ]. Similarly, data from the Indian bronchiectasis registry indicate that the treatment of bronchiectasis in India is also diverse [ 19 ]. Furthermore, in a comparison of the European and Indian registry data, both long-term oral and inhaled antibiotics were more commonly used in Europe compared with India [ 19 ].

Cost varied widely across studies. However, patients, payers and healthcare systems generally accrued substantial medical costs due to hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits, hospital-in-the-home and treatment-related costs. Other medical costs incurred included physiotherapy and outpatient remedies (including breathing or drainage techniques), outpatient medical aids (including nebulisers and respiration therapy equipment) and the cost of attending convalescence centres. Only one study compared the medical costs in patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (age, sex and comorbidities) and found that patients with bronchiectasis had significantly higher total direct medical expenditure, hospitalisation costs, treatment costs for certain medications and costs associated with outpatient remedies and medical aids [ 85 ]. Bronchiectasis was also associated with indirect impacts and costs, including sick leave, sick pay and income lost due to absenteeism and missed work, and lost wages for caregivers of patients with bronchiectasis. Children with bronchiectasis also reported absenteeism from school or childcare.

Our findings regarding HRCU and costs in bronchiectasis are mirrored by a recent systematic literature review by R oberts et al . [ 117 ] estimating the annual economic burden of bronchiectasis in adults and children over the 2001–2022 time period. R oberts et al . [ 117 ] found that annual total healthcare costs per adult patient ranged from €3027 to €69 817 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), predominantly driven by hospitalisation costs. Likewise, we report annual costs per patient ranging from €218 to €51 033, with annual hospital costs ranging from €1215 to €27 612 (adults and children included) ( table 4 ). Further, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a mean annual hospitalisation rate ranging from 0.11 to 2.9, which is similar to our finding of 0.03–1.3 hospitalisations per year ( table 3 ). With regard to outpatient visits, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a mean annual outpatient respiratory physician attendance ranging from 0.83 to 6.8 visits, whereas we report a maximum of 21 visits per year ( table 3 ). It should be noted, however, that our value is not restricted to visits to a respiratory physician. With regard to indirect annual costs per adult patient, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a loss of income because of illness of €1109–€2451 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), whereas we report a figure of ∼€1410 ( table 4 ). Finally, burden on children is similarly reported by us and R oberts et al . [ 117 ], with children missing 12 days of school per year per child ( table 4 ).

Limitations of this review and the existing literature

Due to the nature of this systematic literature review, no formal statistical analyses or formal risk of bias assessments were performed.

Several limitations within the existing literature were identified. Firstly, the vast majority of studies reported patients with NCFBE overall, with limited availability of literature reporting on individual aetiologies and associated disease. Furthermore, where this literature was available, it was limited to a handful of individual aetiologies and associated diseases, and in many of these studies, no statistical analyses to compare different aetiologies and associated disease were performed. Additionally, the methods used to determine aetiologies within individual studies may have differed. Literature on NCFBE and CFBE has traditionally been very distinct; as such, most of the studies included in this review have excluded people with CF. As the general term “CF lung disease” was not included in our search string in order to limit the number of hits, limited data on CFBE are included in this review. Bronchiectasis remains largely under-recognised and underdiagnosed, thus limiting the availability of literature. There is a particular knowledge gap with respect to paediatric NCFBE; however, initiatives such as the Children's Bronchiectasis Education Advocacy and Research Network (Child-BEAR-Net) ( www.improvebe.org ) are aiming to create multinational registries for paediatric bronchiectasis.

There were variations in the amount of literature available for the individual burdens. While there was more literature available on the clinical burden of bronchiectasis, economic data (related to both medical costs and indirect costs) and data on the impact of bronchiectasis on families and caregivers, were limited. Additionally, cost comparisons across studies and populations were difficult due to differences in cost definitions, currencies and healthcare systems.

Sample sizes of the studies included in this systematic literature review varied greatly, with the majority of studies reporting on a small number of participants. Furthermore, many of the studies were single-centre studies, thus limiting the ability to make generalisations about the larger bronchiectasis population, and cross-sectional, thus limiting the ability to assess the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis over a patient's lifetime. Furthermore, there may be potential sex/gender bias in reporting that has not been considered in this systematic literature review.

Finally, for many of the reported outcomes, data varied greatly across studies, with wide estimates for the frequency of different aetiologies and comorbidities as well as disease characteristics such as exacerbations and healthcare costs noted. This reflects the heterogeneity of both the study designs (including sample size and inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the study populations themselves. Additionally, the use of non-standardised terms across articles posed a limitation for data synthesis. Systematic collection of standardised data across multiple centres, with standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria such as that being applied in international registries, is likely to provide more accurate estimates than those derived from small single-centre studies.

• Conclusions

Collectively, the evidence identified and presented in this systematic literature review show that bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients and their families and employers, as well as on healthcare systems. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and reduce both HCRU and overall costs are urgently needed. Further systematic analyses of the disease burden of specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and associated disease (particularly PCD-, COPD- and post-TB-associated bronchiectasis, which appear to impose a greater burden in some aspects) and paediatric bronchiectasis (the majority of data included in this study were obtained from adults) may provide more insight into the unmet therapeutic needs for these specific patient populations.

Questions for future research

Further research into the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis for individual aetiologies and associated diseases is required.

• Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary figures and tables ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary Excel file ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT

• Acknowledgements

Laura Cottino, PhD, of Nucleus Global, provided writing, editorial support, and formatting assistance, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

Conflict of interest: The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). J.D. Chalmers has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Novartis, Insmed and Trudell, and received consultancy or speaker fees from Antabio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Trudell and Zambon. M.A. Mall reports research grants paid to their institution from the German Research Foundation (DFG), German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), German Innovation Fund, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Prieris, Recode, Santhera, Splisense and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; speaker fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals; and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M.A. Mall also reports advisory board participation for AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Pari and Vertex Pharmaceuticals and is a fellow of ERS (unpaid). P.J. McShane is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim's Airleaf trial and Insmed's Aspen trial. P.J. McShane is also a principal investigator for clinical trials with the following pharmaceutical companies: Insmed: Aspen, 416; Boehringer Ingelheim: Airleaf; Paratek: oral omadacycline; AN2 Therapeutics: epetraborole; Renovian: ARINA-1; Redhill; Spero; and Armata. K.G. Nielsen reports advisory board membership for Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Shteinberg reports having received research grants from Novartis, Trudell Pharma and GlaxoSmithKline; travel grants from Novartis, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Rafa; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Teva, Novartis, Kamada and Sanofi; and advisory fees (including steering committee membership) from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kamada, Syncrony Medical, Zambon and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M. Shteinberg also reports data and safety monitoring board participation for Bonus Therapeutics, Israel and is an ERS Task Force member on bronchiectasis guideline development. S.D. Sullivan has participated in advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and has research grants from Pfizer, Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline. S.H. Chotirmall is on advisory boards for CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pneumagen Ltd, served on a data and safety monitoring board for Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc., and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Chiesi Farmaceutici.

Support statement: This systematic literature review was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry .

• Received March 8, 2024.
• Accepted June 4, 2024.
• Copyright ©The authors 2024

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

• Murray MP ,
• Chalmers JD ,
• Aliberti S ,
• McShane PJ ,
• Naureckas ET ,
• Tino G , et al.
• Martins M ,
• Chalmers JD
• Chotirmall SH ,
• Sun X , et al.
• Curtis JR , et al.
• Monteagudo M ,
• Rodríguez-Blanco T ,
• Barrecheguren M , et al.
• Millett ERC ,
• Joshi M , et al.
• Ringshausen FC ,
• de Roux A ,
• Diel R , et al.
• Liu S-X , et al.
• Weycker D ,
• Hansen GL ,
• Shteinberg M ,
• Adir Y , et al.
• Aksamit TR ,
• O'Donnell AE ,
• Barker A , et al.
• Polverino E ,
• Crichton ML , et al.
• Talwar D , et al.
• Chalmers JD , et al.
• Visser SK ,
• Fox GJ , et al.
• Sullivan AL ,
• Goeminne PC ,
• McDonnell MJ , et al.
• Liberati A ,
• Altman DG ,
• Tetzlaff J , et al.
• Scioscia G ,
• Alcaraz-Serrano V , et al.
• Bilotta M ,
• Bartoli ML , et al.
• Rosales-Mayor E ,
• Benegas M , et al.
• Mackay IM ,
• Sloots TP , et al.
• Alcaraz-Serrano V ,
• Gimeno-Santos E ,
• Scioscia G , et al.
• Al-Harbi A ,
• Al-Ghamdi M ,
• Khan M , et al.
• de Gracia J ,
• Giron R , et al.
• Sunjaya A ,
• Reddel H , et al.
• Raguer L , et al.
• Martinez-Garcia MÁ ,
• Athanazio R ,
• Gramblicka G , et al.
• Ailiyaer Y ,
• Zhang Y , et al.
• Stockley R ,
• De Soyza A ,
• Gunawardena K , et al.
• de la Rosa Carrillo D ,
• Navarro Rolon A ,
• Girón Moreno RM , et al.
• de la Rosa D ,
• Martínez-Garcia M-A ,
• Giron RM , et al.
• Sharif S , et al.
• Pottier H ,
• Marquette CH , et al.
• Nagelschmitz J ,
• Kirsten A , et al.
• Artaraz A ,
• Crichton ML ,
• Finch S , et al.
• Aksamit T ,
• Bandel TJ , et al.
• Liu R , et al.
• Olveira C ,
• Olveira G ,
• Gaspar I , et al.
• Goeminne P ,
• Aliberti S , et al.
• Chalmers J ,
• Dimakou K , et al.
• Mitchelmore P ,
• Rademacher J , et al.
• Loebinger M ,
• Menendez R , et al.
• Bennett K , et al.
• Barker RE , et al.
• Zhu YN , et al.
• Yong SJ , et al.
• Inal-Ince D ,
• Cakmak A , et al.
• Araújo AS ,
• Figueiredo MR ,
• Lomonaco I , et al.
• Navas-Bueno B ,
• Casas-Maldonado F ,
• Padilla-Galo A , et al.
• Li T , et al.
• Gatheral T ,
• Sansom B , et al.
• Leem AY , et al.
• Bellelli G ,
• Sotgiu G , et al.
• Patel ARC ,
• Singh R , et al.
• Stroil-Salama E ,
• Morgan L , et al.
• Bradley JM ,
• Bradbury I , et al.
• Lo CY , et al.
• Padilla A ,
• Martínez-García M-Á , et al.
• Dicker AJ ,
• Lonergan M ,
• Keir HR , et al.
• Crichton M ,
• Cassidy A , et al.
• de Boer S ,
• Fergusson W , et al.
• Goeminne PC , et al.
• Suarez-Cuartin G ,
• Rodrigo-Troyano A , et al.
• Abo-Leyah H , et al.
• Blanchette CM ,
• Stone G , et al.
• Grimwood K ,
• Ware RS , et al.
• Kim HY , et al.
• Martínez-Garcia MA ,
• Olveira C , et al.
• Lin CS , et al.
• Navaratnam V ,
• Millett ER ,
• Hurst JR , et al.
• Kim JM , et al.
• Rabe KF , et al.
• Wang LY , et al.
• Schwartz BS ,
• Al-Sayouri SA ,
• Pollak JS , et al.
• Girón Moreno RM ,
• Sánchez Azofra A ,
• Aldave Orzaiz B , et al.
• Sonbahar-Ulu H , et al.
• Nawrot TS ,
• Ruttens D , et al.
• Muirhead CR ,
• Hubbard RB , et al.
• Marchant JM ,
• Roberts J , et al.
• Lovie-Toon YG ,
• Byrnes CA , et al.
• Costa JdC ,
• Blackall SR ,
• King P , et al.
• Jiang N , et al.
• Jayaram L ,
• Karalus N , et al.
• McCullough AR ,
• Tunney MM ,
• Stuart Elborn J , et al.
• Joschtel B ,
• Gomersall SR ,
• Tweedy S , et al.
• Pizzutto SJ ,
• Bauert P , et al.
• Nam H , et al.
• Navarro-Rolon A ,
• Rosa-Carrillo D ,
• Esquinas C , et al.
• Seifer FD ,
• Ji Y , et al.
• McPhail SM ,
• Hurley F , et al.
• McCallum GB ,
• Singleton RJ ,
• Redding GJ , et al.
• Contarini M ,
• Shoemark A ,
• Ozerovitch L ,
• Masefield S ,
• Polverino E , et al.
• Filonenko A , et al.
• Xu G , et al.
• Roberts JM ,
• Kularatna S , et al.

• Table of Contents
• Index by author

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• CF and non-CF bronchiectasis
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

• Adherence-enhancing interventions for pharmacological and oxygen therapy in COPD patients
• PM 2.5 and microbial pathogenesis in the respiratory tract

Related Articles

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychiatry Investig
• v.12(3); 2015 Jul

Why Systematic Review rather than Narrative Review?

1 Department of Psychiatry, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Sir: Recently review articles including systematic and narrative reviews have been significantly increasing in most psychiatric journals in the world alongside "Psychiatry Investigation (PI)". Since the launch of the "PI" at March 2004, there have been a number of review articles; indeed 54 papers were published as format of regular review papers or special articles in the "PI" from 2004 to 2014. However, of the 54 papers, only one review paper partially met the contemporary criteria of systematic review, otherwise were written as a format of narrative review for diverse topics such as epidemiological findings, concept and hypothesis of certain psychiatric disease, current understandings on certain disease, psychopharmacology, and treatment guidelines. This is unsatisfactory when reflecting the fact that systematic reviews have been rapidly and increasingly replacing traditional narrative (explicit) reviews as a standard platform of providing and updating currently available research findings as confident evidence. Most journals have started to change their policy in acceptance of review papers, they have been giving a priority to systematic review only as a regular review article and excluding narrative reviews, to provide the best evidence for all basic and clinical questions and further hypotheses. Of course, there should be Pros and Cons between systematic and narrative reviews; for instance, the major advantage of systematic reviews is that they are based on the findings of comprehensive and systematic literature searches in all available resources, with minimization of selection bias avoiding subjective selection bias, while narrative reviews, if they can be written experts in certain research area, can provide experts' intuitive, experiential and explicit perspectives in focused topics. 1

The absence of objective and systematic selection criteria in review method substantially results in a number of methodological shortcomings leading to clear bias of the author's interpretation and conclusions. Such differences are quite clear when referring to the review paper of Drs. Cipriani and Geddess, 2 where 7 narrative and 2 systematic reviews were compared and found that narrative reviews including same studies reached different conclusions against each other, indicating the difficulties of appraising and using narrative reviews to have conclusion on specific topic. Hence, narrative reviews may be evidence-based, but they are not truly useful as scientific evidence.

Even in reported as systematic review, it is also frequent that those papers are not true systematic review or they have certain bias in data search method and conclusions. For instance, due to lack of satisfactory pharmacotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its frequent comorbid psychotic symptoms, a possible role of atypical antipsychotics (AAs) for PTSD has been consistently proposed. 3 In fact various AAs have demonstrated positive antidepressant and ant-anxiety effects in a number of small-scale, open-label studies (OLSs) or randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). 4 In this context, a recent systematic review (4 olanzapine, 7 risperidone and 1 ziprasidone trials) by Wang et al. 5 has also suggested the positive prospect on the role of AAs for the treatment of PTSD; however, the review has a number of faulty and wrong selection of clinical trials data and interpretation of studies included in their review. The authors neglected wide range of clinical information such as patient characteristics (particularly, initial severity of disease), comorbidity issues, trial duration issues, trial design characteristics, primary endpoint difference, study sponsoring; that is, heterogeneity of clinical trials would substantially influence the quality and clinical implications of the study results. The basic problem of non-systematic search of data is that beneath the shining surface, it seems that the authors utilizing it often misunderstand the true value, underpinning meanings and correct nature of the data, or their true limitations and strengths, and they often go too far or short with the interpretation. 6 Indeed, the main conclusion of a narrative review may often be based on evidence, but such reviews themselves are not rigorous evidence since such reviews are too selective and thus little good quality information could be included. 2 In addition, I found one olanzapine trial was OLS but they included the study in the result (this is a mixture of data yielding a huge heterogeneity). 7 This clearly indicates they were not consistent in collection of the study for their review. Olanzapine has a lot of OLSs beyond the study, likewise other AAs also have a plenty of OLSs. Regarding an inclusion of OLSs for systematic reviews, an interesting metaanalyses are available on the role of olanzapine for adolescent bipolar disorder 8 and aripiprazole augmentation therapy 9 for depression. According to Pae et al. 9 the treatment effects were not significantly different between OLSs and RCTs in efficacy of aripiprazole augmentation for treating depression; the pooled effect size was statistically significant in both study design and also in a meta-analysis regression, study design was not a significant predictor of mean change in the primary endpoint, clearly indicating that OLSs are useful predictors of the potential safety and efficacy of a given compound. This finding was also supported by another meta-analysis. 8 Hence, the value of OLSs should be carefully re-evaluated for practical information source, development of new drugs or acquisition for new indications, and should not be neglected for data research, especially for narrative reviews. Furthermore, Dr. Wang et al. 5 did not include one important RCT; quetiapine has a RCT for PTSD, 10 which was presented in the thematic meeting of the CINP 2009. A 12-week RCT was conducted for 80 PTSD patients. Finally, Wang et al. 5 surprisingly did not present any effect size (ES) for studies, although such calculations are conventionally included in the review papers. Another critical example is Hickie and Rogers's review, 11 according to their article, agomelatine was efficacious antidepressant; however, subsequent researchers who avoided selection bias have clearly demonstrated its weak efficacy as an antidepressant. 12 Therefore, reflecting two review papers, 5 , 11 we can realize that inappropriate aggregation of studies may definitely bias conclusion. Hence, entire published and unpublished dataset should be considered in systematic review, especially, when clinical data is not sufficient and the medication has no officially approved indication by the regulatory agency.

To summarize, systematic review should include followings respecting recommendation from currently available systematic review guidelines (e.g., The Cochrane Library www.cochrane.org ); clear basic and clinical hypothesis, predefined protocol, designation of search resources, through data search (regardless of publication), transparent selection criteria, qualification of studies selected, synthesis of study data and information, relevant summary and conclusion. Table 1 compares systematic and narrative reviews ( Table 1 ). Since the evidence-based medicine is the current trend and also mandatory for establishment of heath policy, the PI should also turn to encourage submission of systematic reviews rather than narrative reviews.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI12C0003).

Clinical features, operative management and surgical results of first Draf III procedure, revision Draf III approach and the use of mucosal flaps and stents: a systematic review

• Review Article
• Published: 05 September 2024

Cite this article

• Francesco Chiari 1 ,
• Pierre Guarino   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3796-9483 2 ,
• Claudio Donadio Caporale 2 ,
• Klizia Orsini 3 ,
• Gianluca Trevisi 4 , 5 ,
• Livio Presutti 1 &
• Gabriele Molteni 1 , 6  

Draf III procedure is a challenging endoscopic technique, which has gradually gained an increasing popularity in treating frontal sinus pathologies. The main aim of this systematic review is to offer a comprehensive overview on clinical indications, pre-operative evaluation, surgical techniques, post-operative management and complications of the Draf III procedure. As a step forward, such issues have been comparatively evaluated as referred to patients who underwent primary Draf III procedure and revision DRAF III one). Finally, surgical outcomes related to mucosal flaps and stents to prevent re-stenosis are analyzed.

A systematic literature review has been performed following PRISMA 2020 checklist statement. An automated search has been carried out by applying an extensive set of queries on the Embase/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases, relating to papers published from 2000 to 2021.

Frontal chronic refractory sinusitis is the most frequent indication to Draf III procedure (72%), followed by mucoceles (11%) and skull base or paranasal tumors (10%). The success rate of primary and revision Draf III are 83.5% and 71%, respectively. The re-stenosis phenomenon seems to depend on allergic mechanism and polyposis). The use of mucosal flaps could improve the Draf III efficacy, better than the use of stents (87 vs 72% of neo-ostium patency).

Draf III is a safe and highly effective surgical technique. However, some limited clinical conditions require some careful technical features, such as the use of mucosal flap, in order to prevent re-stenosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Surgery for Frontal Sinus Disease

Value of a lateral inferior pedicle flap in Draf IIb for recurrent frontal sinus diseases: a prospective study

Outcomes of endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (epsit): a systematic review, explore related subjects.

• Medical Imaging

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author P.G.

Marks SC (1999) Learning curve in endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(2):215–218

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fermi M, Chiari F, Mattioli F, Bonali M, Molinari G, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Anschuetz L, Fernandez IJ, Presutti L (2022) Surgical training on ex vivo ovine model in otolaryngology head and neck surgery: a comprehensive review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(6):3657

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fortes B, Balsalobre L, Weber R, Stamm R, Stamm A, Oto F, Coronel N (2016) Endoscopic sinus surgery dissection courses using a real simulator: the benefits of this training. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 82(1):26–32

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Weber R, Draf W, Kratzsch B, Hosemann W, Schaefer SD (2001) Modern concepts of frontal sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 111(1):137–146

Draf W (1991) Endonasal micro-endoscopic frontal sinus surgeries: the Fulda concept. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2:234–240

Article   Google Scholar  

Gross CW, Gross WE, Becker DG (1995) Modified transnasal endoscopic Lothrop procedure: frontal drillout. Oper Tech Otolayngol Head Neck Surg 6:19–200

Google Scholar  

Wang YP, Shen PH, Hsieh LC, Wormald PJ (2019) Free mucosal grafts and anterior pedicled flaps to prevent ostium restenosis after endoscopic modified Lothrop (frontal drillout) procedure: a randomized, controlled study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 9(11):1387–1394

Naidoo Y, Bassiouni A, Keen M, Wormald PJ (2013) Risk factors and outcomes for primary, revision, and modified Lothrop (Draf III) frontal sinus surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 3(5):412–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21109 . ( Epub 2012 Nov 7 PMID: 23135988 )

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 29(372):n71

Murad MH, Sultan S, Haffar S, Bazerbachi F (2018) Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evid Based Med 23(2):60–63

Georgalas C, Hansen F, Videler WJM, Fokkens WJ (2011) Long terms results of Draf type III (modified endoscopic Lothrop) frontal sinus drainage procedure in 122 patients: a single centre experience. Rhinology 49(2):195–201

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ting J, Wu A, Metson R (2014) Front1al sinus drillout (mod- ified Lothrop procedure): long-term results in 204 pa- tients. Laryngoscope 124:1067–1071

Pendolino AL, Koumpa FS, Zhang H, Leong SC, Andrews PJ (2020) Draf III frontal sinus surgery for the treatment of Pott’s puffy tumour in adults: our case series and a review of frontal sinus anatomy risk factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277(8):2271–2278

Ye T, Hwang PH, Huang Z, Huang Q, Xian J, Li C, Zhou B (2014) Frontal ostium neo-osteogenesis and patency after Draf III procedure: a computer-assisted study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 4(9):739–744

Morrissey DK, Bassiouni A, Psaltis AJ, Naidoo Y, Wormald PJ (2016) Outcomes of revision endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 6(5):518–522

Lee JJ, Wick EH, Chicoine MR, Dowling JL, Leuthardt EC, Santiago P, Pipkorn P (2021) Endonasal free flap reconstruction combined with Draf frontal sinusotomy for complex cerebrospinal fluid leak: a technical report & case series. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 21(6):478–484

Conger BT Jr, Riley K, Woodworth BA (2012) The Draf III mucosal grafting technique: a prospective study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 146(4):664–668

Jafari A, Tringale KR, Panuganti BA, Acevedo JR, Pang J, DeConde AS (2017) Short-term morbidity after the endoscopic modified Lothrop (Draf-III) procedure compared with Draf-IIa. Am J Rhinol Allergy 31(4):265–270

Patel VS, Choby G, Shih LC, Patel ZM, Nayak JV, Hwang PH (2018) Equivalence in outcomes between Draf 2B vs Draf 3 frontal sinusotomy for refractory chronic frontal rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 8(1):25–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22032 . ( Epub 2017 Nov 13 PMID: 29131540 )

Hildenbrand T, Wormald PJ, Weber RK (2012) Endoscopic frontal sinus drainage Draf type III with mucosal transplants. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 26(2):148–51

Illing EA, do Cho Y, Riley KO, Woodworth BA (2016) Draf III mucosal graft technique: long-term results. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 6(5):514–7

Varghese G, Sahadevan A (2019) Comparison of the modified version of DRAF III to the conventional DRAF III: a 5 year study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 71(3):334–340

Hahn S, Palmer JN, Purkey MT et al (2009) Indications for external frontal sinus procedures for inflammatory sinus disease. Am J Rhinol Allergy 23:342–347

Hajbeygi M, Nadjafi A, Amali A, Saedi B, Sadrehosseini SM (2016) Frontal sinus patency after extended frontal sinusotomy type III. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 28(88):337–343

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sansoni ER, Sacks R, Harvey RJ (2019) Chapter 11—frontal sinusotomy—Draf III. In: Chiu AG, Palmer JN, Adappa ND (eds) Atlas of endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery, 2nd edn. Elsevier, pp 93–100

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Al Mahdi MJ, Asiri M, Pharaon M, Mubark A (2020) Frontal sinus inverted papilloma managed with Draf III. J Surg Case Rep 2020(8):rjaa180

Thompson HM, Tilak AM, Miller PL, Grayson JW, Cho DY, Woodworth BA (2021) Treatment of frontal sinus osteomyelitis in the age of endoscopy. Am J Rhinol Allergy 35(3):368–374

Shen J, Chan N, Wrobel BB (2018) The endoscopic modified lothrop procedure: review of single institution experience and long-term outcomes. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 3(2):105–109

Yokoi H, Yamanaka H, Matsumoto Y, Kawada M, Fujiwara M, Ohara A, Saito K (2020) Modified Lothrop (Draf III) procedure for the treatment of a recurrent orbitofrontal cholesterol granuloma: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep 8:2050313X20907809

Nayak DR, Pai K, Nair S, Ramaswamy B, Sabhahit H (2016) A short term subjective and objective analysis of modified endoscopic Lothrop’s procedure and its functional outcome: our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 68(4):481–486

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Casiano R, Livingston JA (1998) Endoscopic Lothrop proce—dure: the University of Miami experience. Am J Rhi- nol 12:335–339

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tran KN, Beule AG, Singal D et al (2007) Frontal ostium restenosis after the endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure. Laryngoscope 117:1457–1462

Banhiran W, Sargi Z, Collins W, Kaza S, Casiano R (2006) Long-term effect of stenting after an endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure. Am J Rhinol. 20(6):595–599

Download references

No funding is reported for the present study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Otolaryngology and Audiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Francesco Chiari, Livio Presutti & Gabriele Molteni

Otolaryngology Head and Neck Unit, “Santo Spirito” Hospital, Pescara, Italy

Pierre Guarino & Claudio Donadio Caporale

Neurosurgical Unit, “G. Mazzini” Hospital, Teramo, Italy

Klizia Orsini

Neurosurgical Unit, “Santo Spirito” Hospital, Pescara, Italy

Gianluca Trevisi

Department of Neurosciences, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Gabriele Molteni

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Guarino .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chiari, F., Guarino, P., Caporale, C.D. et al. Clinical features, operative management and surgical results of first Draf III procedure, revision Draf III approach and the use of mucosal flaps and stents: a systematic review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08957-7

Download citation

Received : 02 July 2024

Accepted : 27 August 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08957-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Frontal sinus surgery
• Frontal chronic sinusitis
• Modified Lothrop procedure
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research