ArticleGland surgery2022
Assessment of length of stay and cost of minimally invasive versus open thymectomies in patients with myasthenia gravis in Florida.
Article in Gland surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health economic evaluations of myasthenia gravis: a systematic review.Croatian medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Thymectomy for the Treatment of Nonthymomatous Myasthenia Gravis.JAMA network open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thymectomy has become a standard component in treatment for myasthenia gravis. The best surgical approach is still subject to debate. Minimally invasive surgery may have a lower mortality and morbidity rate, improved cosmetic results, and equivalent efficacy at improving neurologic symptoms to open approaches. We compared the perioperative outcomes and cost between the two techniques. Methods: We queried Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset for patients who underwent thymectomy and had a primary diagnosis of non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes to carry out this retrospective cohort study. The dates ranged between January 1 Results: An open approach was used in 108 patients, whereas a minimally invasive approach was used in 40 patients. Minimally invasive surgery group had a shorter length of stay (3.0 Conclusions: Patients who underwent minimally invasive thymectomy for Myasthenia gravis had a significantly shorter length of stay and a lower, although not significant, overall cost.
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.