Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36941021›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2023

Panoramic view of clinical features of lupus erythematosus: a cross-sectional multicentre study from China.

Hui Jin, Shihang Zhou, Yangyiyi Yu, Ming Zhao, Haijing Wu, Hai Long, Siqi Fu, Ruifang Wu, Heng Yin, Jieyue Liao and 10 more

Open access · goldFull text readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hui Jin *Department of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Shihang Zhou *Department of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yangyiyi Yu *Department of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Ming ZhaoInstitute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, China.
Haijing WuDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6338-5089
Hai LongDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Siqi FuDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Ruifang WuDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Heng YinDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jieyue LiaoDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Shuangyan LuoDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yu LiuDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Qing ZhangDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yixin TanDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Shuaihantian LuoDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xin HuangDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Fen LiDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Guanghui LingDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Qianjin LuInstitute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, China qianlu5860@pumcderm.cams.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-4192-4897
Central South University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLupus erythematosus (LE) is a complicated disease with highly heterogeneous clinical manifestations. Previous studies have rarely included all subgroups of patients with lupus and have overlooked the importance of the cutaneous manifestations thereof. We aimed to compare the demographic and clinical differences among patients with different subtypes of lupus.

methodsThis is the first real-world study with a relatively large sample size that simultaneously includes patients with isolated cutaneous lupus erythematosus (iCLE) and SLE. All samples were obtained from the Lupus Erythematosus Multicenter Case-control Study in Chinese populations (LEMCSC) (registration number: ChiCTR2100048939). Comparative analyses between different LE subgroups were performed.

resultsA total of 2097 patients with lupus were included, with 1865 patients with SLE, 1648 with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), and 232 with iCLE. Among the patients with CLE, 1330 had acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (ACLE); 160 had subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE); and 546 had chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CCLE). The study included a relatively large number of patients with CCLE subtypes, including 311 with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), 262 with chilblain lupus erythematosus (CHLE) and 45 with lupus erythematosus profundus (LEP). Demographic characteristics, systemic involvement, mucocutaneous manifestations and autoantibodies were significantly different among the groups.

conclusionsCLE and iCLE are two distinct disease states, and the selection of broad or narrow CLE definitions should be emphasised in scientific reports. LE-non-specific cutaneous lesions imply more severity, while self-reported photosensitivity and LE-specific cutaneous manifestations imply milder severity. Generalised ACLE appears to be a more severe state than localised ACLE, and CHLE appears to be more severe than DLE. Anti-Sjögren's syndrome-related antigen B (SSB) antibodies have higher specific directivity than anti-Sjögren's syndrome-related antigen A (SSA) antibodies for SCLE lesions. Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies have a higher co-occurrence with ACLE and a lower co-occurrence with SCLE and CCLE. Compared with DLE, CHLE has significantly higher positive rates of anti-SSA/Ro60 (71%) and anti-SSA/Ro52 (42.4%) antibodies, whereas LEP is associated with a higher positive rate of antinucleosome antibodies (31.1%).

Indexed as

Lupus Erythematosus, CutaneousLupus Erythematosus, DiscoidLupus Erythematosus, SystemicSjogren's SyndromeAcute DiseaseCase-Control StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansautoimmune diseaseslupus erythematosus, systemiclupus nephritis

Identifiers

PMID36941021
PMCPMC10030678
OpenAlexW4327937805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read72
identifiers read12
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.