SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Evaluating rituximab against cyclophosphamide or cyclosporine in idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) is a common cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults. While cyclophosphamide and cyclosporine are established treatments, rituximab has emerged as a promising alternative. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide and cyclosporine in patients with IMN.
methodsA meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing rituximab to cyclophosphamide or cyclosporine in adults with biopsy-confirmed IMN. The primary outcome was treatment efficacy (complete or partial remission). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. A random-effects model was used for pooling risk ratios. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. R software (4.5.0) was used to perform statistical analysis.
resultsA total of eight studies comprising 936 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Rituximab was compared with cyclophosphamide or cyclosporine in idiopathic membranous nephropathy. The overall pooled analysis showed no significant difference in efficacy between treatment groups (RR = 1.117, 95% CI 0.882-1.414, P = 0.3595). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Subgroup analysis revealed that rituximab was more effective than cyclosporine in Asian populations, but less effective than cyclophosphamide in patients with severe renal dysfunction. No significant difference in severe adverse events (RR = 0.984, 95% CI 0.744-1.302, P > 0.05) was found between treatments.
conclusionRituximab is comparable in efficacy to cyclophosphamide and cyclosporine for IMN treatment, with no significant difference in remission rates or severe adverse events. Treatment should be individualized.
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.