ArticleKidney international reports2018
Systematic Review and the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Lupus Nephritis.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Trial Design and End Points in Lupus Nephritis.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for assessing treatment efficacy. However, sampling bias can affect the generalization of results to routine clinical practice. Here we assessed whether patients with lupus nephritis (LN) seen in routine clinical practice would have satisfied entry criteria to the major published RCTs in LN.
methodsA systematic literature search from January 1974 to May 2015 was carried out, identifying all RCTs investigating LN induction treatment. Patients diagnosed with proliferative or membranous LN between 1995 and 2013 were identified from the Barts Lupus Centre database; baseline characteristics were compared with each RCT's entry criteria to assess hypothetical inclusion or exclusion.
resultsOf 363 articles, 33 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of 137 patients newly diagnosed with LN (111 with proliferative/mixed proliferative and 26 with pure membranous LN), 32% would have been excluded from RCT entry (range 8%-73%). The main reasons for exclusion would have been too severe disease, too mild disease, or prior immunosuppressant use, which were exclusion criteria in 26, 20, and 22 RCTs, respectively. A total of 27 patients with LN (20%) were re-biopsied due to flare; 68% of these would have been ineligible to enter RCTs.
conclusionPublished RCTs do not truly reflect the heterogeneity of patients with LN in routine practice at our lupus center. The external validity of RCTs could be improved by including more representative patient cohorts. RCTs should be used as a guide but consideration should be given to similarities between individual patients and the characteristics of the trial cohorts before treatment decisions being made.
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.