ArticleMuscle & nerve2021
Telephone consultation for myasthenia gravis care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Assessment of a novel virtual myasthenia gravis index.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remote Monitoring in Myasthenia Gravis: Exploring Symptom Variability.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Trial
- Measuring the effect of rozanolixizumab using the Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index: analyses from the randomized phase 3 MycarinG study.Journal of neurology · 2025Trial
- Digital Monitoring of Patients with Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Prospective Pilot Study.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- The telemedical platform MyaLink for remote monitoring in myasthenia gravis - rationale and protocol for a proof of concept study.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and validation of the Myasthenia Gravis TeleScore (MGTS).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022Article
- Impact of COVID-19 in AChR Myasthenia Gravis and the Safety of Vaccines: Data from an Italian Cohort.Neurology international · 2022Article
- Advocating Patient-Centred Research in Ocular Myasthenia Gravis (OMG): A Call for an OMG Research Consortium.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Telephone consultation for myasthenia gravis care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Assessment of a novel virtual myasthenia gravis index.Muscle & nerve · 2021Article
- Impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on a US sample of patients with myasthenia gravis.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsThe aim of the study was to determine the association between the virtual Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index (vMGII) with other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of myasthenia gravis (MG) and its usefulness in telephone consultations with MG patients.
methodsThis was a retrospective case series in which vMGII score along with virtual Single Simple Question (vSSQ), virtual Patient-Acceptable Symptom State PASS (vPASS) response, and patient disease status based on Myathenia Gravis Foundation of America postintervention status were collected during telephone consultation along with the MGII, SSQ, and PASS responses during the preceding in-person clinic visits.
resultsIn 214 patients, the mean difference of vMGII between the vPASS "Yes" and "No" groups was -14.2 ± 1.4 (95% confidence interval, -16.9 to -11.3; P < .001) with mean vMGII for vPASS "Yes" group being 6.4 ± 7.7 and vPASS "No" being 20.5 ± 11.5. A vMGII of 11.5 or higher predicted vPASS "yes" response with a sensitivity of 78.7% and specificity of 81.4%. A strong negative correlation was found between the vMGII and vSSQ (r = -.667; P < .001). The mean vMGII was 0.48 ± 1.42 for patients in remission, and 9.31 ± 10.93 for improved, 9.32 ± 8.79 for stable, and 22.58 ± 14.04 for worsened groups (P < .001). These associations were the same as those obtained during the preceding in-person clinic visit and the direction of change in MGII scores also indicated change in disease status. DISCUSSION: vMGII is an effective measure to assess an MG patient's disease status in telephone consultations and relates well with other PRO measures. The vMGII remains reliable for assessing MG disease status even with removal of the physical examination component.
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.