ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2002
Neonatal lupus.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neonatal lupus erythematosus: an acquired autoimmune disease to be taken seriously.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Autoimmune antibodies in arrhythmia: a narrative review of potential therapeutic targets to prevent overtreatment.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Molecular Mechanisms of Fetal and Neonatal Lupus: A Narrative Review of an Autoimmune Disease Transferal across the Placenta.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Neonatal lupus erythematosus presenting with rash, thrombocytopenia compounded by cytomegalovirus colonisation: a diagnostic dilemma.BMJ case reports · 2020Article
- Neonatal Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Syndrome: a Comprehensive Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2017Review
- Evaluation and management of bradycardia in neonates and children.European journal of pediatrics · 2016Review
- Advances in the understanding of the Fc gamma receptors-mediated autoantibodies uptake.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital heart block (CHB), defined as an atrioventricular block diagnosed in utero, at birth, or within the neonatal period (0-27 d after birth), is a rare disorder closely linked to transplacental transport of maternal antibodies anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB. These antibodies may induce a myocarditis, or interact directly with calcium channel proteins with disturbance of transmembrane signaling at the level of the conduction tissue, or interfere with apoptosis. Depending on the severity of the process, the fetus may die in utero or a few days after birth or survive to the perinatal period and have a near-normal life; in most survivors a pace-maker must be implanted. Skin lesions, haematological disorders, and hepatic cholestasis are other transient clinical features of the syndrome. Sinus bradycardia and QT interval prolongation may be observed as well in babies born from anti-Ro/SSA positive mothers. The risk of recurrence of complete block ranges from 10-17%. Most of the mothers are asymptomatic at delivery and are identified only by the birth of an affected child. Their long-term outcome generally is more reassuring than previously assumed and arthralgias and dry eyes are the most common symptoms. A standard therapy for blocks detected in utero still does not exist. The prevalence of complete CHB in newborns of anti-Ro/SSA positive women and with known connective-tissue disease was 2%. Serial echocardiograms and obstetric sonograms, performed at least every 2 wk starting from the 16 wk gestation, are recommended in anti-Ro/SSA positive pregnant women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.