SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of acute-phase immunotherapy for adult autoimmune encephalitis: a systematic review and network 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is an immune-mediated inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system associated with substantial morbidity. Acute-phase immunotherapy is crucial for improving outcomes, yet the comparative efficacy and safety of available regimens remain unclear. We therefore performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare acute-phase immunotherapeutic strategies for AE. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2025 for studies evaluating acute-phase immunotherapy in AE. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was change in the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after treatment; adverse events were secondary outcomes. Effects were expressed as mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank interventions. Results: Eleven studies (1,359 patients) were included, evaluating seven strategies: intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), IVMP+IVIG, IVMP+plasma exchange (PE), IVMP+IVIG+PE, IVMP+immunoadsorption (IA), and IVMP+efgartigimod (EFG). For efficacy, IVMP+EFG ranked highest in mRS improvement among the included regimens (MD = -0.99, 95% CrI -1.30 to -0.68; SUCRA = 95%), followed by IVMP+IA (MD = -0.87; SUCRA = 88%). IVMP+PE ranked lowest (MD = 0.32; SUCRA = 0.2%). For safety, IVIG monotherapy had the lowest adverse-event risk (RR = 0.51, 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.97), whereas IVMP+PE had the highest risk (RR = 3.10, 95% CrI 0.92 to 9.60). Conclusion: Acute-phase immunotherapy for AE should be individualized by disease severity and antibody subtype. Consistent directional findings were observed in the anti-NMDAR subgroup and, separately, in the subgroup with baseline mRS ≥3. IVMP+EFG and IVMP+IA ranked favorably for short-term functional improvement, although the evidence was based mainly on observational studies and small sample sizes. IVIG remained a reasonable option given its favorable safety profile. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251085606, identifier CRD420251085606.
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.