I am one of the authors and we (my team and me) noted that errors occurred in the published article. We already requested the changes and PLoS ONE is working on them and will publish a notice of corrections. In the meantime we are leaving this note to inform you about that.
The main error that we think is important to let you know to the proper understanding of our work is related to the outcome Progression of free survival (PFS) this is an outcome that was defined as the time to the first occurrence of any one of the following: a confirmed decrease of 10 percentage points or more in the percentage of the predicted FVC, a confirmed decrease of 50 m or more in the 6-minute walk distance, or death. That means if PFS increases there is benefit, and if PFS decreases there is no benefit.
In our study we obtained a Relative Risk (RR) of PFS this measure means “the risk of progression”, thereby if the risk of progression (RR of PFS) decreases there is benefit, if it increases there is no benefit.
In the article (abstract, results and figure 5) says Pirfenidone decreased PFS, and must say Pirfenidone decreased the risk of progression (RR of PFS), with the following result 0.82 (IC 0.73–0.92, I2:22%).
Also in the conclusion of the Abstract says “We observed significant differences in physiologic and clinically relevant outcomes such as reduction in all-cause mortality, IPF related mortality, worsening and exacerbation of IPF and PFS” (but as the body of the manuscript describes there is no benefit in the acute exacerbation of IPF), and it must say “We observed significant differences in physiologic and clinically relevant outcomes such as reduction in all-cause mortality, IPF related mortality, worsening of IPF and improvement of PFS”.
We are sorry for any inconvenience that this errors may cause