Prognostic factors for acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

IntroductionIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic fibrosing interstitial pneumonia with unknown disease aetiology. Acute exacerbation (AE) of IPF is an accelerated disease progression beyond its expected course. A 30-day mortality of AE of IPF is 40%. While death may occur, there is much variation in the clinical progression of this condition. Previous attempts have been made to investigate various possible prognostic factors for AE of IPF; however, they have yet to be confirmed. The aim of this systematic review is to clarify these prognostic factors.Methods and analysisIn this review, AE of IPF is the condition of interest, which has been defined according to previously established diagnostic criteria. The primary outcomes of interest include short-term all-cause mortality and pulmonary-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes of interest include long-term mortality and hospital separation for the disease. Primary studies investigating prognostic factors for AE of IPF are eligible for inclusion in this review. All study types are permitted except case reports. Two reviewers will search electronic databases, such as Medline and EMBASE, from 2002 to the 1 April 2019 and extract data independently. Risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Meta-analysis will be conducted for univariate data if at least three studies report the effect of a specific prognostic factor using similar statistical methods. Multivariate results will be reported qualitatively. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be considered with the aim of generalising findings to the clinical settings and drawing more robust conclusions. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method will be applied to evaluate the quality of evidence for each prognostic factor.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required. Results will be reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018106172

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors of acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

“…The methodology of this review may have affected the selection and confirmation of prognostic factors although it had been reported in a protocol paper beforehand. 21 Potential prognostic factors were defined as any clinical information reported in three or more studies assuming that frequent reports would likely imply clinical relevance.…”

“…20 The methods were described briefly as the in-depths of methodology of this study were reported as a protocol paper beforehand. 21 Patient and public involvement There was no patient and public involvement in the whole process of conducting this research.…”

The axial spondyloarthritis clinical phenotype in idiopathic hypoparathyroidism: critical review of concept that muscular hypercontractility can induce enthesopathy lesions

“…Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are often classified as "high quality" evidence regarding efficacy of new treatments for patients with a specific disease, whereas case reports and other observational data are considered as hypothesis generators with initially classified lower grade of evidence (69)(70)(71)(72). However, an increasing argument is being made in defense of case reports and its restoration as a prominent and useful medical reporting strategy (73).…”

Are physical factors associated with poor prognosis following a whiplash trauma?: a protocol for a systematic review and data synthesis

“…The phase of investigation GRADE domain is a district for prognostic studies phase 3 and phase 2 considered the highest quality of evidence 53. The GRADE system will be applied to assess the overall quality of evidence of confirmed prognostic factors generated from univariate results, as used previously 55…”

“…The overall decision of judging whether a factor is prognostic will be based on two criteria, an approach used previously 55. First, the same factor must show statistical univariate association with an outcome in at least 75% of all included studies.…”