Observational studyRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Efficacy of the Lupus-Cruces Nephritis protocol in different prognostic groups: a propensity score and cluster analysis.
Observational study in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the efficacy of the Lupus-Cruces Nephritis (LCN) protocol vs standard of care (SOC) in achieving complete vrenal response (CRR) among different subpopulations and clinical clusters of patients with LN.
methodsThis was an observational comparative study with clinical care data of patients from the Lupus-Cruces, historic Lupus-Cruces and Lupus-Bordeaux cohorts. Different prognostic factors were obtained from previous studies and analysed in both LCN and SOC groups. Three different clinical clusters of patients were identified using a two-way clustering analysis. A multivariate propensity score (PS) adjusted analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis were performed comparing both therapeutic schemes in the different identified subpopulations and clusters.
resultsWithin the cohort of 147 patients, those receiving the LCN protocol (40/47, 85%) were more likely to achieve CRR at 12 months than patients receiving the SOC (44/100, 44%). This was consistent across all prognostic subpopulations. The PS-adjusted logistic regression by subgroups confirmed these results. Three different clusters (named C1, C2 and C3) were identified. Both the univariate and the PS-adjusted Cox regression analysis for CRR at any time confirmed the higher likelihood of achieving CRR of patients treated with the LCN protocol in the three clusters: C1, hazard ratio (HR) 10.7 (95% CI 1.65-69.6, P = 0.013); C2, HR 2.2 (95% CI 1.16-4.1, P = 0.016); C3, HR 6.1 (95% CI 2.99-12.51, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe LCN protocol was superior to the SOC schemes in achieving CRR in patients with LN across different subpopulations and clinical clusters.
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.