SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
The neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus biomarker landscape: what blood and cerebrospinal fluid analytes have been studied and how they performed? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate biomarkers that discriminate systemic lupus erythematosus patients with and without neuropsychiatric involvement. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (inception-March 2024) for studies of blood or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analytes in neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE). Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for analyte-biofluid pairs with ≥5 independent studies; the remaining data were synthesized narratively. Results: A total of 93 studies were included. Few analyte-biofluid combinations met the criteria for meta-analysis, and most promising biomarkers (intrathecal inflammation, neuronal injury, and reduced neuroprotection) were assessed in only small, heterogeneous studies. The meta-analyses showed higher CSF IL-6 and MCP-1 in NPSLE than non-NPSLE SLE (Hedges' Conclusion: CSF markers of intrathecal inflammation, neuronal injury, and reduced neuroprotection distinguish NPSLE from non-NPSLE SLE but are neither specific for NPSLE nor easily obtainable in routine practice. Classical serum autoantibodies (anti-ribosomal P, anti-NR2, and antiphospholipid antibodies) show modest, phenotype-dependent diagnostic performance. Evidence remains fragmented, with heterogeneous assays, cutoffs, and case definitions, underscoring the need for harmonized multicenter studies to identify robust diagnostic, evaluative, and prognostic biomarkers for overall and manifestation-specific NPSLE.
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.