ArticleScientific reports2026
The use of glucocorticoids in immunoglobulin-resistant Kawasaki disease.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The treatment of intravenous immunoglobulin-resistant Kawasaki disease (IVIGRKD) is still controversial, and few studies investigate using glucocorticoids (GCs) alone as rescue therapy for Kawasaki Disease (KD) patients. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of using GCs alone as rescue therapy in IVIGRKD patients and to further explore the appropriate GCs dosage. We enrolled 210 IVIGRKD diagnosed in our hospital and conducted a cohort analysis. Patients were divided into the intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) group, IVIG + GCs group, and the GCs group. The GCs group was further divided into GCs A group(10-15 mg/kg/d) and GCs B group(1-4 mg/kg/d). Clinical outcomes and changes in coronary arteries after the treatment during a one-year period were observed. Propensity-score matching and logistic regression analyses were used to make the comparison. After propensity-score matching, the therapeutic response rate in the GCs group was significantly higher than that in the IVIG group (91.1% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.004). And there was no significant difference between the IVIG group and IVIG + GCs group and between the GCs group and IVIG + GCs group. We further compared various doses of GCs (10–15 mg/kg/d and 1–4 mg/kg/d) and didn’t find a significant difference. After logistic regression analysis, it was found that the therapeutic response rate in the GCs group was significantly higher than in the IVIG group (P = 0.001, OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.37–3.67). Additionally, the therapeutic response rate was significantly higher in the IVIG + GCs group than in the IVIG group (P = 0.01, OR = 4.73, 95% CI: 1.40-16.02). However, there was no significant difference between the GCs and IVIG + GCs groups. Different doses of GCs (10–15 mg/kg/d and 1–4 mg/kg/d) were also not significantly correlated with the treatment efficiency. There was no significant difference in preventing coronary artery lesions (CALs) between different groups. Single-GCs therapy is a viable option for patients who do not respond to IVIG, and a dosage of 1–4 mg/kg/d of GCs demonstrated comparable efficacy to higher-dose regimens and may represent an effective treatment option for IVIGRKD 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.