ArticleScientific reports2026
Correlation between anti-retinal antibodies and lupus retinopathy in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lupus retinopathy (LR) is one of the most frequent and serious ocular complications of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), because it may cause irreversible visual impairment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between serum anti-retinal antibodies levels of SLE patients and the incidence of LR. Levels of serum anti-α-enolase antibody (Ab), anti-arrestin Ab, anti-recoverin Ab and anti-IRBP3 Ab were detected in 89 SLE patients (divided into LR group and non-LR group) and 81 healthy controls by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The correlation between these four anti-retinal Ab, SLE activity and the incidence of LR was evaluated. LR group had a higher SLE disease activity index (average SLEDAI score, 18 (7) versus 9 (5), P < 0.001), higher frequency of pleurisy (40% versus 20.4%, P = 0.044) and lower level of hemoglobin (102.343 ± 23.157 versus 112.759 ± 19.678, P = 0.025) comparing to non-LR group. LR group had higher levels of anti-α-enolase than non-LR group (P = 0.033) and control group (P < 0.0001). The levels of anti-recoverin in LR group was higher than non-LR group (P = 0.036) and control group (P < 0.0001), while the difference was not significant between non-LR group and control group (P = 0.109). Using combination of anti-α-enolase Ab and anti-recoverin Ab to diagnose LR in SLE patients is more effective (with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 72.68%) than use anti-α-enolase Ab (AUC: 65.65%) or anti-recoverin (AUC: 61.96%) only. Our results suggested that anti-α-enolase and anti-recoverin may be used as potential biomarkers of lupus retinopathy in SLE patients.
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.