ArticleArchives of rheumatology2026
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Medication Protocols in Patients with Immunoglobulin G4-Related Disease Based on Follow-up Time: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Article in Archives of rheumatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsGlucocorticoids (GCs) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are commonly used drugs in the treatment of immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD). However, no broad consensus is available on their intervention effects. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of different medication protocols in the treatment of IgG4-RD were assessed in this systematic review and network meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. RStudio and Stata 15.1 were used for data analysis.
resultsThe results showed that in terms of improvement of remission rates, GCs + DMARDs had the strongest overall efficacy [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 82.9%], and DMARDs were the most effective within 12 months during follow-up (SUCRA = 82.5%), while GCs + DMARDs were the most effective over 12 months during follow-up (SUCRA = 83.2%). In terms of reduction of relapse rates, the overall efficacy of GCs + DMARDs was the strongest (SUCRA = 83.5%), and GCs + DMARDs performed the best both within and over 12 months during follow-up. The adverse reaction rates were 38.9%, 5.3%, and 33.3%, respectively, among patients treated with GCs + DMARDs, DMARDs, and GCs.
conclusionThe GCs + DMARDs are recommended for short-term improvement of remission rates and reduction of relapse rates, as well as for achieving long-term efficacy. Cite this article as: Liu Y, Fu X, Zhang Y, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of different medication protocols in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease based on follow-up time: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. ArchRheumatol. 2026;41(1):3-13.
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.