ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Electrodiagnostic subtyping in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients in the International Guillain-Barré Outcome Study.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamics of Nerve Conduction Studies in Patients With Guillain-Barré Syndrome.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Progress in Diagnosis, Biomarkers, Neuroimaging and Management.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Clinical and electrophysiological features of pure sensory Guillain-Barré syndrome: retrospective analysis of 22 patients across 14 provinces in Southern China.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Evolving understanding of Guillain-Barré syndrome pathophysiology and the central role of the classical complement pathway in axonal injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Guillain-Barré syndrome.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Article
- Electrodiagnostic subtyping in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients in the International Guillain-Barré Outcome Study.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
40 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeVarious electrodiagnostic criteria have been developed in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Their performance in a broad representation of GBS patients has not been evaluated. Motor conduction data from the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) cohort were used to compare two widely used criterion sets and relate these to diagnostic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis criteria.
methodsFrom the first 1500 patients in IGOS, nerve conduction studies from 1137 (75.8%) were available for the current study. These patients were classified according to nerve conduction studies criteria proposed by Hadden and Rajabally.
resultsOf the 1137 studies, 68.3% (N = 777) were classified identically according to criteria by Hadden and Rajabally: 111 (9.8%) axonal, 366 (32.2%) demyelinating, 195 (17.2%) equivocal, 35 (3.1%) inexcitable and 70 (6.2%) normal. Thus, 360 studies (31.7%) were classified differently. The areas of differences were as follows: 155 studies (13.6%) classified as demyelinating by Hadden and axonal by Rajabally; 122 studies (10.7%) classified as demyelinating by Hadden and equivocal by Rajabally; and 75 studies (6.6%) classified as equivocal by Hadden and axonal by Rajabally. Due to more strictly defined cutoffs fewer patients fulfilled demyelinating criteria by Rajabally than by Hadden, making more patients eligible for axonal or equivocal classification by Rajabally. In 234 (68.6%) axonal studies by Rajabally the revised El Escorial (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) criteria were fulfilled; in axonal cases by Hadden this was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: This study shows that electrodiagnosis in GBS is dependent on the criterion set utilized, both of which are based on expert opinion. Reappraisal of electrodiagnostic subtyping in GBS is warranted.
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.