Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36215243›Full record

ReviewPloS one2022

Diagnostic test accuracy of novel biomarkers for lupus nephritis-An overview of systematic reviews.

Juliana de Andrade Rebouças Guimarães, Silvania da Conceição Furtado, Ana Cyra Dos Santos Lucas, Bruno Mori, José Fernando Marques Barcellos

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Lupus Nephritis Biomarkers: A Critical Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Lupus Nephritis in Children: Novel Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
    Review
  20. Lupus Nephritis Risk Factors and Biomarkers: An Update.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Juliana de Andrade Rebouças GuimarãesCoordenação de Medicina, Escola Superior de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade do Estado do Amazonas Manaus, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8376-4927
Silvania da Conceição FurtadoDepartamento de Morfologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Ana Cyra Dos Santos LucasFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1174-0579
Bruno MoriPrograma de Pós-graduação em Imunologia Básica e Aplicada, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
José Fernando Marques BarcellosDepartamento de Morfologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Amazonas · BREscola Superior de Ciências da Saúde · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease with multiorgan inflammatory involvement and a mortality rate that is 2.6-fold higher than individuals of the same age and sex in the general population. Approximately 50% of patients with SLE develop renal impairment (lupus nephritis). Delayed diagnosis of lupus nephritis is associated with a higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease, the need for replacement therapy, and mortality. The initial clinical manifestations of lupus nephritis are often discrete or absent and are usually detected through complementary tests. Although widely used in clinical practice, their accuracy is limited. A great scientific effort has been exerted towards searching for new, more sensitive, and specific biomarkers in recent years. Some systematic reviews have individually evaluated new serum and urinary biomarkers tested in patients with lupus nephritis. This overview aimed to summarize systematic reviews on the accuracy of novel serum and urinary biomarkers for diagnosing lupus nephritis in patients with SLE, discussing how our results can guide the clinical management of the disease and the direction of research in this area.

methodsThe research question is "What is the accuracy of the new serum and urinary biomarkers studied for the diagnosis of LN in patients with SLE?". We searched for systematic reviews of observational studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of new serum or urinary biomarkers of lupus nephritis. The following databases were included: PubMed, EMBASE, BIREME/LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane, including gray literature found via Google Scholar and PROQUEST. Two authors assessed the reviews for inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias (ROBIS tool).

resultsTen SRs on the diagnostic accuracy of new serum and urinary BMs in LN were selected. The SRs evaluated 7 distinct BMs: (a) antibodies (anti-Sm, anti-RNP, and anti-C1q), (b) cytokines (TWEAK and MCP-1), (c) a chemokine (IP-10), and (d) an acute phase glycoprotein (NGAL), in a total of 20 review arms (9 that analyzed serum BMs, and 12 that analyzed BMs in urine). The population evaluated in the primary studies was predominantly adults. Two SRs included strictly adults, 5 reviews also included studies in the paediatric population, and 4 did not report the age groups. The results of the evaluation with the ROBIS tool showed that most of the reviews had a low overall risk of bias.

conclusionsThere are 10 SRs of evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of serum and urinary biomarkers for lupus nephritis. Among the BMs evaluated, anti-C1q, urinary MCP-1, TWEAK, and NGAL stood out, highlighting the need for additional research, especially on LN diagnostic panels, and attempting to address methodological issues within diagnostic accuracy research. This would allow for a better understanding of their usefulness and possibly validate their clinical use in the future. REGISTRATION: This project is registered on the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020196693).

Indexed as

Lupus Erythematosus, SystemicLupus NephritisAdultBiomarkersChemokine CXCL10ChildDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansLipocalin-2Systematic Reviews as TopicBiomarkersChemokine CXCL10Lipocalin-2

Identifiers

PMID36215243
PMCPMC9550089
OpenAlexW4304087202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.