ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Expert consensus recommendations for improving and standardising the assessment of patients with generalised myasthenia gravis.
Article 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 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Age and Treatment Efficacy in Myasthenia Gravis: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of complement inhibitors and FcRn blockers in generalized AChR antibody-positive myasthenia gravis: a meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Measuring the effect of rozanolixizumab using the Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index: analyses from the randomized phase 3 MycarinG study.Journal of neurology · 2025Trial
- Telemedical communication patterns in myasthenia gravis in a remote monitoring study.Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- Practical Guidance on Initiating and Switching Targeted Immunotherapies in Generalised Myasthenia Gravis: A German-Austrian Expert Opinion Paper.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Care Goals in Myasthenia Gravis: Expert Consensus Recommendations Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2026Review
- Experience Using Efgartigimod to Treat Juvenile Myasthenia Gravis in China: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Optimizing myasthenia gravis management in practice: integrating clinical scales and classification systems.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2026Review
- Reply to Letter: "Limitations of Complement Activity Assays as Biomarkers for Ravulizumab Therapeutic Monitoring" by Saccà and Pelto Regarding "Inhibition of Classical and Alternative Complement Pathway by Ravulizumab and Eculizumab".Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Estimating the minimal clinically important difference for the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life revised scale (MG-QOL15R).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Minimal Symptom Expression in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Valuable Patient-Centric Treatment Goal.European journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Advancing Care in Myasthenia Gravis: What Can We Learn From the Multiple Sclerosis Community?Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Construction of patient trajectories to model clinical trial outcomes: application to myasthenia gravis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences of Neurologists in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Conjoint Analysis Study.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Bridging the Heterogeneity of Myasthenia Gravis Scores as a Foundational Step Towards the Construction of a Digital Twin.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- AXIN1, STAMBP, ST1A1, CDCP1, and SIRT2 Validated as Myasthenia Gravis Biomarkers: A Comparative Proteomic Study With MS, CIDP, and Controls.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Bridging the Heterogeneity of Myasthenia Gravis Severity Scores for Digital Twin Development.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- New and Emerging Biological Therapies for Myasthenia Gravis: A Focussed Review for Clinical Decision-Making.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- The clinical risk and post-COVID-19 sequelae in patients with myasthenia gravis: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Delphi study to elicit expert consensus around decision-making in the treatment of Friedreich ataxia.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegular and consistent disease assessment could provide a clearer picture of burden in generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG) and improve patient care; however, the use of assessment tools in practice lacks standardisation. This modified Delphi approach was taken to review current evidence on assessment tool use in gMG and develop expert-derived consensus recommendations for good practice.
methodsA European expert panel of 15 experienced gMG neurologists contributed to development of this consensus, four of whom formed a lead Sub-committee. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes) framework was used to define six clinical questions on gMG assessment tools, a systematic literature review was conducted, and evidence-based statements were developed. According to a modified Delphi voting process, consensus was reached when ≥70% of the experts rated agreement with a statement as ≥8 on a scale of 1-10.
resultsEighteen expert- and evidence-based consensus statements based on six themes were developed. Key recommendations include: consistent use of the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living score (MG-ADL) across clinical settings, followed by a simple question (e.g., Patient Acceptable Symptom State [PASS]) or scale to determine patient satisfaction in clinical practice; use of a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis [QMG] or quality of life [QoL] assessment when the MG-ADL indicates disease worsening; and consideration of symptom state to determine the timing and frequency of recommended assessments. Expert panel consensus was reached on all 18 statements after two voting rounds.
conclusionsThis process provided evidence- and expert consensus-based recommendations for the use of objective and subjective assessment tools across gMG research and care to improve management and outcomes for patients.
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.