ArticleCureus2020
Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Guillain Barre Syndrome Based on Electrophysiological Subtypes in Pakistani Children.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guillain-Barrè Syndrome-Retrospective Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Patients Referred to a Tertiary Care Pediatric Neuromuscular Center from 2000 to 2017: Electrophysiological Findings, Outcomes, and a Brief Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Advances in Exosome-Based Therapies for the Repair of Peripheral Nerve Injuries.Neurochemical research · 2024Review
- Article
- Clinical profile and predictors for outcome in children presenting with Guillain-Barré syndrome.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS) is an autoimmune-mediated, acute, symmetrical, flaccid paralysis. Guillain Barre syndrome has different electrophysiological types that carry prognostic significance and tend to differ between adults and children. This study aims to compare the clinical outcome of Guillain Barre syndrome in Pakistani children based on their electrophysiological types to help in understanding and predicting the prognosis. Study design Observational comparative study Place & duration The pediatric department, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad; all patients with Guillain Barre syndrome seen between 2012 and 2019 Method All children aged one to 16 years in whom Guillain Barre syndrome was diagnosed based on clinical history, examination, and electrophysiological findings. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was taken and data entered on the designed questionnaire. Chi-square and non-parametric tests were applied for significant association. Results Twenty-three children were included in the study. Of these, 14 were males (60.9%) while the mean age was 5.8 (+4.5) years. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) was found to be the predominant type (9; 39.1%) followed by acute motor and sensory axonal neuropathy (AMSAN) (6; 26.1%), Acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) was diagnosed in four (17.4%) patients. Six (26.1%) patients needed mechanical ventilation and 10 patients (43.5%) required intensive care unit (ICU) care. The majority of the patients (18; 78.3%) received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Conclusion The study highlights varied electrophysiological types of GBS in Pakistani children, which differ in predominance from previous studies. However, various indicators of poor outcomes that are highlighted in adults, including the older age group, need for mechanical ventilation, and electrophysiological evidence of axonal degeneration, were not significant predictors of outcome in children.
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.