Systematic review of content and quality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis review articles

Abstract

Narrative reviews are frequently accessed; however, the content and quality of review articles on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have not been assessed. A systematic review assessed content and quality of narrative review articles that addressed the diagnosis or management of IPF and were published from 2001 to 2015. Article recommendations were assessed relative to contemporary IPF guidelines. Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Articles were predominantly written by physicians and published in respiratory journals. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding were reported in 52% and 24% of reviews, respectively. European authors were more likely to recommend bronchoscopy (adjusted p=0.02) and were more likely to recommend pirfenidone or nintedanib prior to publication of definitive clinical trials (adjusted p=0.04). A total of 39% of management-focused articles suggested therapies that were never recommended in guidelines. Predictors of higher article quality were citation of the contemporary IPF guideline (p=0.01) and more recent publication (p=0.001). Quality of reviews increased over time; however, review articles frequently made discordant recommendations compared to IPF guidelines. These findings indicate the need for authors, peer reviewers, editors and readers to critically appraise the content and quality of narrative reviews on IPF, and the need for frequent guideline updates to reflect new evidence.