SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Risk factors for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and mendelian randomization analyses.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is rising globally. Existing meta-analyses and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have yielded inconsistent findings with uncertain evidence quality.
objectivesThis study aimed to synthesize available evidence and assess its credibility for potential risk factors of IPF.
methodsWe systematically searched 8 databases and selected meta-analyses and MR studies related to IPF risk factors from inception to March 11, 2025. We assessed the quality of meta-analyses using the AMSTAR-2 tool and evaluated MR studies using the STROBE-MR guidelines. We categorized the evidence into four levels and performed pooled analysis for risk factors reported in at least two MR studies.
resultsA total of 8 meta-analyses were included, reporting 22 associations, mainly involving genetics, infections, occupational and environmental exposures, lifestyle, and clinical variables. According to the grading of evidence credibility, 12 were rated as suggestive associations, and 10 as weak associations. The overall credibility of the evidence is relatively low. The 36 MR studies investigated a total of 124 associations, with evidence grading showed 13 as robust, 90 as possible, 17 as suggestive, and 4 as insufficient. The pooled analysis identified 108 associations covering lifestyle, diet and nutrition, anthropometric indices, biomarkers, and clinical variables. The quality level of the included meta-analyses was low and critically low, while the MR studies strictly adhered to STROBE-MR, demonstrating good reporting quality.
conclusionsThis umbrella review uncovers the evidence regarding the associations between IPF risk and factors such as genetics, viral infections, occupational and environmental exposures, lifestyle, and clinical variables through a comprehensive analysis of meta-analyses and MR studies. These findings provide an evidence base for IPF risk factor research and support clinical decisions and public health strategies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024575341.
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.