SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Monoclonal antibodies in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a severe central nervous system (CNS) inflammatory disease. New immunobiological therapies have emerged as promising options.
objectivesTherefore, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of monoclonal antibodies for NMOSD treatment.
methodsThis review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD420251106764) and was conducted in accordance with standard guidelines. We included randomized clinical trials that analyzed immunobiological therapies for NMOSD. Data were extracted using EndNote and Excel. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the main outcomes. Publication bias was evaluated.
resultsEight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. All were rated as presenting some concerns regarding risk of bias. Our analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in relapse risk (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39, NNT = 3), reduction in EDSS (SMD − 0.33; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.13), with no differences in severe adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.41, NNH = 100) between the monoclonal antibody group and controls.
conclusionOur meta-analysis demonstrated that monoclonal antibodies are effective and safe, significantly reducing relapse risk and disability without increasing severe adverse events.
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.