ArticleHeliyon2025
Rituximab-associated adverse events in nephrotic syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antiviral efficacy of honey bee antimicrobial peptides against SARS-CoV-2.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of rituximab combined with ACE inhibitors and statins in refractory nephrotic syndrome: associations with proteinuria, lipid profiles, and podocyte-related biomarkers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Rituximab (RTX) has been recommended to treat nephrotic syndrome (NS), but its safety has not been quantitatively analyzed. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2023, for randomized control trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies reporting the adverse events (AEs) related to RTX for treating NS. Data were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and risk difference (RD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was identified using the Cochrane Q test and quantified by the Results: Ten RCTs and five retrospective studies with 1231 patients were enrolled. RTX significantly reduced the risk of total AEs (OR = 0.32, 95 % CI [0.13, 0.78]) compared to the non-RTX group in retrospective studies but was not in RCTs. The pooled rate of infusion reactions was 32 % (95 % CI = [19 %, 45 %]) in RCTs and 8 % (95 % CI = [3 %, 13 %]) in retrospective studies. Subgroup analyses demonstrated a lower risk of hematological events in adult NS patients (OR = 0.21, 95 % CI [0.09, 0.51]) and the 1000 mg RTX intervention (OR = 0.21, 95 % CI [0.09, 0.51]). There is no significant difference in serious AEs, infection, gastrointestinal, renal, cardiovascular, and cancer events between the two groups. Conclusion: RTX reveals great potential in terms of safety compared to non-RTX treatments due to the relatively few AEs in our results. However, the interaction of other drugs needs to be monitored. The safety of RTX in NS patients needs to be further confirmed in high-quality clinical trials.
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.