Association between organ damage and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective At least half of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop organ damage as a consequence of autoimmune disease or long-term therapeutic steroid use. This study synthesised evidence on the association between organ damage and mortality in patients with SLE. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature for observational (cohort, case-control and cross-sectional) studies published between January 2000 and February 2017. Included studies reported HRs or ORs on the association between organ damage (measured by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score) and mortality. Study quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa assessment. Pooled HRs were obtained using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q (Q) and I 2 statistics. Results The search yielded 10 420 articles, from which 21 longitudinal studies were selected. Most studies (85%) were of high quality. For 10 studies evaluating organ damage (SDI) as a continuous variable and reporting HR as a measure of association, a 1-unit increase in SDI was associated with increased mortality; pooled HR was 1.34 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.44, p<0.001; Q p=0.027, I 2 =52.1%). Exclusion of one potential outlying study reduced heterogeneity with minimal impact on pooled HR (1.33 (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.42), p<0.001, Q p=0.087, I 2 =42.0%). The 11 remaining studies, although they could not be aggregated because of their varying patient populations and analyses, consistently demonstrated that greater SDI was associated with increased mortality. Conclusions Organ damage in SLE is consistently associated with increased mortality across studies from various countries. Modifying the disease course with effective therapies and steroid-sparing regimens may reduce organ damage, improve outcomes and decrease mortality for patients with SLE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".