SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Prevalence of Gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically assess the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and to provide evidence-based support for clinical assessment and future research.
methodsRelevant studies published from database inception to January 1, 2026 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 18.0 software.
resultsA total of 33 studies involving 35,807 IPF patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of GERD in IPF patients was 47.0% [95%CI = 32.2%-62.0%]. Subgroup analysis indicated that the prevalence of GERD was higher in cross-sectional studies than in cohort and case-control studies; similar in Europe and Asia and relatively lower in America and Oceania; lower in developing countries than in developed countries; the lowest in studies conducted during 2001-2010 and the highest in studies conducted after 2011. The prevalence estimated using 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring was higher than that estimated using clinical medical records or non-reflux monitoring methods. In addition, prevalence was higher in patients aged < 60 years than in those aged 60-69 years and ≥ 70 years, relatively higher in studies with a lower male proportion, higher in small-sample studies than in large-sample studies, and slightly higher in males than in females. Meta-regression suggested that study type, GERD diagnostic method, mean age and sample size were the main sources of heterogeneity.
conclusionGERD appears to be common among patients with IPF, with apparent variations across study types, sample sizes, age groups and diagnostic methods. These findings may support greater clinical awareness and assessment of GERD in IPF patients. However, owing to the limitations of the number and quality of included studies, substantial heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of confounding factors, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously and require further verification in high-quality studies.
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.