Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24189082›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

A systematic review of eculizumab for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS).

John Rathbone, Eva Kaltenthaler, Anna Richards, Paul Tappenden, Alice Bessey, Anna Cantrell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Eculizumab for ATCR-associatedFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Long-term outcome and management of complement-mediated thrombotic microangiopathy/aHUS.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Kidney diseases.Immunological reviews · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John RathboneSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Eva Kaltenthaler
Anna Richards
Paul Tappenden
Alice Bessey
Anna Cantrell
University of Sheffield · GBCentre for Inflammation Research · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of eculizumab for patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), compared with current treatment options.

designA systematic review was performed according to the general principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. All study designs were included, except case histories.

participantsAll patients diagnosed with aHUS were included; no age restrictions were used.

interventionsEculizumab compared with current treatment options. IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES: 12 databases were searched. Additional searches were performed through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Electronic Medicines Compendium websites, Google internet searches and contacting clinical experts. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional studies.

results2 small, uncontrolled prospective multinational, multicentre studies and one small uncontrolled multinational, multicentre retrospective study were included. No meta-analyses were performed. Compared with baseline measures, thrombotic microangiopathy event-free status was achieved in 84% of patients in the prospective studies. Adverse events, as documented by enrolling investigators were frequent, with upper-respiratory tract infection affecting a third of patients. No deaths or episodes of meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia occurred in the prospective studies. Results of the study extension phases up to 114 weeks indicate that the benefits of the treatment are sustained.

conclusionsEculizumab is clinically effective for the treatment of aHUS. Further research is needed to evaluate eculizumab, ideally using patient-related clinical outcomes. If randomised studies are not feasible, study investigators should ensure that the threat of bias is minimised in future studies of eculizumab with respect to the reporting of patient recruitment and selection.

Identifiers

PMID24189082
PMCPMC3822313
OpenAlexW2143604857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.