ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Evaluation of the classification performance and cost-effectiveness of classification criteria in children with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease. In Latin America, the utility of the existing lupus classification criteria and their economic implications remain unexplored. Objective: To evaluate and compare the utility and cost-effectiveness of the ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, and ACR/EULAR-2019 classification criteria in children with suspected cSLE. Methods: We prospectively included subjects aged ≤17 who presented to the Immunology Department with suspected cSLE and consented to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, tuberculosis, immunosuppressive therapy, malignancies, or insufficient data to apply the classification criteria. The ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, and ACR/EULAR-2019 lupus criteria were applied, followed by a referral for expert consensus diagnosis, which served as the standard of reference. We calculated the classification performance (how well a set of classification criteria assigns an individual to SLE or no-cSLE, measuring sensitivity, specificity, among others), direct healthcare costs for each classification, and developed a decision tree and quadrant graph for economic evaluation. Results: Ninety-six subjects (83% female) with a median age of 13.5 years were included in this study. The expert consensus diagnosis identified cSLE in 43 subjects; ACR and ACR/EULAR each identified 42 cases, while SLICC identified 56. The sensitivity was 98% for SLICC-2012, 84% for ACR-1997, and ACR/EULAR-2019, Conclusion: The SLICC-2012 criteria were the most sensitive for the classification of SLE, but not the most cost-effective. ACR-1997 remains the most cost-effective tool in specialized settings; however, the higher sensitivity of SLICC-2012 supports its use to improve early referral.
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.