Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title






First Page


Last Page


PubMed ID





School of Medical and Health Sciences


National Health and Medical Research Council


Steinfort, D. P., Evison, M., Witt, A., Tsaknis, G., Kheir, F., Manners, D., . . . Van Der Heijden, E. H. F. M. (2023). Proposed quality indicators and recommended standard reporting items in performance of EBUS bronchoscopy: An official world association for bronchology and interventional pulmonology expert panel consensus statement. Respirology, 28(8), 722-743.


Background: Since their introduction, both linear and radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) have become an integral component of the practice of Pulmonology and Thoracic Oncology. The quality of health care can be measured by comparing the performance of an individual or a health service with an ideal threshold or benchmark. The taskforce sought to evaluate quality indicators in EBUS bronchoscopy based on clinical relevance/importance and on the basis that observed significant variation in outcomes indicates potential for improvement in health care outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature review informed the composition of a comprehensive list of candidate quality indicators in EBUS. A multiple-round modified Delphi consensus process was subsequently performed with the aim of reaching consensus over a final list of quality indicators and performance targets for these indicators. Standard reporting items were developed, with a strong preference for items where evidence demonstrates a relationship with quality indicator outcomes. Results: Twelve quality Indicators are proposed, with performance targets supported by evidence from the literature. Standardized reporting items for both radial and linear EBUS are recommended, with evidence supporting their utility in assessing procedural outcomes presented. Conclusion: This statement is intended to provide a framework for individual proceduralists to assess the quality of EBUS they provide their patients through the identification of clinically relevant, feasible quality measures. Emphasis is placed on outcome measures, with a preference for consistent terminology to allow communication and benchmarking between centres.



Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.