ArticleERJ open research2025
Global trends in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis mortality rates during 2001-2022.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational Repurposing of FDA-Approved Drugs as Candidate MMP2 Inhibitors with Putative MMP3 Cross-Activity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Exposure-informed lung transcriptomic analysis links predicted NNK targets to cell type-specific remodeling programs in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of nintedanib combined with pirfenidone versus monotherapy in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal lung disease. Updated global mortality data, especially from underexplored countries, are limited. This study aimed to understand the current global trends in IPF-associated mortality rates. Methods: This observational study used the World Health Organization Mortality Database to analyse data stratified by sex, age and geographic region, encompassing 64 countries between 2001 and 2022. IPF was defined according to the International Code for Diseases-10 code J84.1. Crude and age-standardised mortality rates per 100 000 individuals were calculated to estimate long-term mortality trends. Mortality rates were calculated by dividing IPF-associated deaths by the corresponding population, with age-specific rates determined for each 5-year age group. Trends in the 2001-2022 period were analysed using a locally weighted regression model, and the average annual percentage change in mortality rates between 2010 and 2022 was estimated using joinpoint regression analysis. Results: Overall, 874 998 deaths associated with IPF were analysed. The LOESS-smoothed crude mortality rate increased from 2.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77-2.43) per 100 000 in 2001 to 3.14 (95% CI 2.71-3.57) per 100 000 by 2022. The LOESS-smoothed age-standardised mortality rates increased overall, peaking at 1.59 (95% CI 1.51-1.67) per 100 000 in 2018 and declining slightly to 1.57 (95% CI 1.35-1.79) per 100 000 in 2022. Mortality was higher among males than females; furthermore, 87.5% of deaths occurred in individuals aged ≥65 years. Mortality rates were highest among the American population, with a notable increase in Latin American countries. Conclusion: IPF-associated mortality rates have increased globally, particularly in males. Significant geographical, age and sex disparities were observed, emphasising the need for targeted public health measures and improved disease management.
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.