Skip to main content

Risk of stroke in SLE: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal
Lupus science & medicine (Q1)
Published
15 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review of cohort studies
Evidence level
Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2a)
Authors
Jingya Zhang, Weiman Shi, Yaling Xu, Dianming Li, Wu Chen, Lin Huang, et al.
PMID
42744409
DOI
10.1136/lupus-2026-002161

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Epidemiology (paper of the day, 21 September 2026): Systematic review and meta-analysis of stroke risk in SLE

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The association between SLE and composite stroke, ischaemic stroke and haemorrhagic stroke remains incompletely understood. This meta-analysis aims to assess the risk of stroke in patients with SLE. METHODS: Data sources included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and reference lists of included studies. This meta-analysis included cohort studies evaluating whether stroke risk is associated with SLE. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were pooled using a random-effects model, and publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger's test. RESULTS: A total of 25 cohort studies involving 5 220 837 individuals were included in this meta-analysis, which were published between 2001 and 2026. The pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly increased risk of stroke in patients with SLE (RR of 2.60, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.05, I²=97.9%, p<0.001). The risk of composite stroke (RR of 2.83, 95% CI 2.25 to 3.57, I²=98.0%, p<0.001), ischaemic stroke (RR of 2.34, 95% CI 1.75 to 3.12, I²=97.6%, p<0.001) and haemorrhagic stroke (RR of 2.66, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.49, I²=96.2%, p<0.001) was also increased in SLE. Despite the large heterogeneity, the sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust, and there was little evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: The risk of composite stroke, ischaemic stroke and haemorrhagic stroke is increased in SLE. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261294082.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.