ReviewBasic and clinical neuroscience
Myasthenia Gravis and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Basic and clinical neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- New-Onset Myasthenia Gravis Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Myasthenia Gravis and Pregnancy: Clinical Management and Maternal-Neonatal Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Trends in hospitalisation, myasthenic crisis and intensive care use in myasthenia gravis: a nationwide population-based study in Spain (2016-2022).Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- The Etiology Analysis of Myasthenia Gravis with In-Hospital Mortality in the Neurocritical Care Unit.Neurocritical care · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with myasthenia gravis (MG), an autoimmune disease affecting the neuromuscular junction, exhibits varying rates of COVID-19 infection across different studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the pooled prevalence of COVID-19 infection in individuals with MG. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and gray literature, including references to the research published before October 2021. The total number of participants, the first author, the publication year, the country of origin, the number of MG patients, their symptoms, hospitalization rates, and deaths were all extracted as study data. Results: Our literature search yielded 253 articles, of which 75 remained after removing duplicates. Finally, 18 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 infection in MG cases was found to be 2% (95% CI, 1%, 3%; I Conclusion: In summary, this systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that the pooled prevalence of COVID-19 infection in individuals with MG is 2%.
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.