ArticleMedicina clinica (English ed.)2023
Comparison of two antifibrotic treatments for lung fibrosis in post-COVID-19 syndrome: A randomized, prospective study.
Article in Medicina clinica (English ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19.Infection & chemotherapy · 2025Review
- Scars from the pandemic: understanding post-COVID-19 interstitial lung disease.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Review
- Single-dose cathepsin L CRISPR nanotherapy mitigates PASC-like lung damage in hamsters.Nano research · 2025Article
- Therapeutic options for the treatment of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19: a scoping review.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The Long-term Volumetric and Radiological Changes of COVID-19 on Lung Anatomy: A Quantitative Assessment.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although pulmonary fibrosis secondary to COVID-19 infection is uncommon, it can lead to problems if not treated effectively in the early period. This study aimed to compare the effects of treatment with nintedanib and pirfenidone in patients with COVID-19-related fibrosis. Methods: Thirty patients who presented to the post-COVID outpatient clinic between May 2021 and April 2022 with a history of COVID-19 pneumonia and exhibited persistent cough, dyspnea, exertional dyspnea, and low oxygen saturation at least 12 weeks after diagnosis were included. The patients were randomized to receive off-label treatment with nintedanib or pirfenidone and were followed up for 12 weeks. Results: After 12 weeks of treatment, all pulmonary function test (PFT) parameters, 6MWT distance, and oxygen saturation were increased compared to baseline in both the pirfenidone group and nintedanib groups, while heart rate and radiological score levels were decreased ( Conclusion: In patients with interstitial fibrosis after COVID-19 pneumonia, both nintedanib and pirfenidone were observed to be effective in improving radiological score and PFT parameters. Nintedanib was more effective than pirfenidone in increasing exercise capacity and saturation values but caused more adverse drug effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.