ReviewOpen life sciences2023
Immunosuppressive treatment for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: An updated network meta-analysis.
Review in Open life sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of treating NELL1-positive idiopathic membranous nephropathy on clinical outcomes, serum cytokine levels (IL-6, IL-10, IL-2, IL-17), nutritional status, and immune responses.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
- Fractional excretion of total protein predicts renal prognosis in Japanese patients with primary membranous nephropathy.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Article
- Is There a Place for Apheresis in the Management of Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy? A Report of Three Cases and Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of different pharmacological treatments for idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN). Thirty-four relevant studies were extracted from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and MEDLINE. Treatment with tacrolimus (TAC), cyclophosphamide (CTX), mycophenolate mofetil, chlorambucil (CHL), cyclosporin A (CSA), steroids, rituximab (RTX), and conservative therapy were compared. Outcomes were measured using remission rate and incidence of side effects. Summary estimates were expressed as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. In the direct meta-analysis for comparison of complete remission (CR) rate, the curative effect of RTX is inferior to CTX (OR 0.37; CI 0.18, 0.75). In the NMA of CR rate, the results showed that the curative effects of CTX, CHL, and TAC were significantly higher than those of the control group. The efficacy of RTX is not inferior to the CTX (OR 0.81; CI 0.32, 2.01), and the level of evidence was moderate; CSA was not as effective as RTX, and the difference was statistically significant with moderate evidence (OR 2.98, CI 1.00, 8.91). In summary, we recommend CTX and RTX as the first-line drug for IMN treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.