ReviewCureus2023
Rituximab in Pemphigus Vulgaris: A Review of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Dermatology.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward Precision Oral Medicine in Pemphigus Vulgaris: A Conceptual AI Framework for Rituximab Response Prediction.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical and Immunological Outcomes of Rituximab Therapy in Pemphigus: A Prospective Observational Study.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Patient-Reported Outcomes on Quality of Life in Older Adults with Oral Pemphigus.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Is It Time to Reconsider Rituximab Dosing Regimens for Pemphigus Vulgaris?Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A case report of esophageal cancer in a patient with pemphigus vulgaris: A coincidence or something beyond that?Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Therapeutic Uses of Rituximab and Clinical Features in Immunoglobulin G4-Related Disease: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder that primarily affects the skin and mucous membranes. Conventional treatments for PV, such as corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents, have limitations in terms of efficacy and long-term safety. Monoclonal antibody therapy, specifically rituximab, has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach in the management of PV. This review article provides a comprehensive overview of rituximab in the treatment of PV, with a focus on its efficacy, safety profile, and immunological mechanisms of action. The article begins with an introduction to PV and the significance of monoclonal antibody therapy in dermatology. It then explores the clinical presentation and underlying immune-mediated mechanisms of PV, highlighting the autoimmune nature of the disease. The rationale for using monoclonal antibody therapy, particularly rituximab, in PV is discussed, emphasizing the limitations of conventional treatments and the concept of targeted therapy. The review delves into the efficacy and safety of rituximab based on clinical studies, evaluating disease remission rates, duration, and relapse rates. Furthermore, the immunological effects of rituximab, including B-cell depletion and modulation of the immune response, are explored in detail. Comparisons between rituximab and conventional treatment modalities in PV are made, assessing clinical outcomes, safety profiles, and long-term efficacy. Challenges and considerations in rituximab therapy are discussed, including factors influencing its efficacy, optimal dosing, treatment duration, and the need for maintenance therapy.
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.