Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38117543›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of neurology2024

Refocusing generalized myasthenia gravis: Patient burden, disease profiles, and the role of evolving therapy.

Francesco Saccà, Emmanuelle Salort-Campana, Saiju Jacob, Elena Cortés-Vicente, Christiane Schneider-Gold

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Economic burden of myasthenia gravis in France: A nationwide claims database study (STAMINA).The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Francesco SaccàDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1323-6317
Emmanuelle Salort-CampanaReference Center of Neuromuscular Disorders and ALS, Timone University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France.
Saiju JacobInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Elena Cortés-VicenteNeuromuscular Diseases Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau and Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1428-1072
Christiane Schneider-GoldDepartment of Neurology, St. Josef Hospital of Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9232-201X
Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille · FRFederico II University Hospital · ITInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESSt. Josef-Hospital · DEUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeGeneralized myasthenia gravis (gMG) continues to present significant challenges for clinical management due to an unpredictable disease course, frequent disease fluctuations, and varying response to therapy. The recent availability of new pharmacologic therapies presents a valuable opportunity to reevaluate how this disease is classified, assessed, and managed and identify new ways to improve the clinical care of patients with gMG.

methodsNarrative review was made of publications identified via searches of PubMed and selected congresses (January 2000-September 2022).

resultsNew consensus definitions are required to ensure consistency, to better characterize patients, and to identify patients who will benefit from specific drugs and earlier use of these agents. There is a need for more frequent, standardized patient assessment to identify the cause of motor function deficits, provide a clearer picture of the disease burden and its impact on daily living and quality of life (QoL), and better support treatment decision-making. Novel approaches that target different components of the immune system will play a role in more precise treatment of patients with gMG, alongside the development of new algorithms to guide individualized patient management.

conclusionsgMG has a physical, mental, and social impact, resulting in a considerable burden of disease and substantially decreased QoL, despite standard treatments. The availability of novel, targeted treatments that influence key pathological mediators of gMG, together with new biomarkers, offers the potential to optimize patient management and ultimately enables a greater number of patients to achieve minimal manifestation status and a reduced burden of disease.

Indexed as

Myasthenia GravisCost of IllnessHumansQuality of Lifeclassificationdisease burdengeneralized myasthenia gravispathophysiologytargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID38117543
PMCPMC11236062
OpenAlexW4389992087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.