ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2024
Exploring Factors That Prolong the Diagnosis of Myasthenia Gravis.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myasthenia Gravis With Acetylcholine Receptor Antibodies in the Very Old: Treatment Challenges and Diagnostic Pitfalls.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Recommendations for the management of myasthenia gravis in Belgium.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a condition with significant phenotypic variability, posing a diagnostic challenge to many clinicians worldwide. Prolonged diagnosis can lead to reduced remission rates and morbidity. This study aimed to identify factors leading to a longer time to diagnosis in MG that could be addressed in future to optimize diagnosis time. Methods: One hundred and ten patients from 3 institutions in Melbourne, Australia, were included in this retrospective cohort study. Demographic and clinical data were collected for these patients over the first 5 years from diagnosis and at 10 years. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used to identify factors contributing to a longer diagnosis time. Results: The median time for MG diagnosis was 102 (345) days. 90% of patients were diagnosed before 1 year. Female patients took longer than male patients to be diagnosed ( Discussion: This study identified several factors that can contribute to a prolonged diagnosis time of MG. Patient and clinician education about MG and outpatient diagnostic efficiency needs emphasis. Further studies are also needed to explore the delayed presentation time of women and nonworking patients in MG.
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.