SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy for autoimmune nodopathies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Autoimmune nodopathy (AN) is a distinct CIDP-like entity defined by its poor response to standard treatments, including IVIG. The efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, a potential mechanism-based therapy, have not been quantitatively synthesized. Objective: To systematically evaluate and quantitatively synthesize the efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy in patients with AN. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 4, 2025. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of AN patients treated with anti-CD20 agents were included. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was employed to estimate pooled response rates. Results: Twenty-nine studies comprising 118 patients were included. In the descriptive synthesis, most reports described physician-assessed clinical improvement after anti-CD20 therapy. For quantitative pooling, we restricted the meta-analysis to studies reporting standardized, objective scale-based outcomes ( Conclusion: Anti-CD20 therapy has shown high efficacy in treating AN that is refractory to conventional treatments. However, due to the observational nature of the available data and the lack of randomized controlled trials, these results should be interpreted with caution and are not yet practice-changing. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to better define the treatment's efficacy, optimal dosing strategies, and long-term safety.
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.