ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2024
Accuracy of prostigmin tests in the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis: a meta-analysis.
Review in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an acquired autoimmune disease diagnosed based on clinical manifestations, muscle fatigue tests, prostigmin tests, serum antibody tests, and neuroelectrophysiological examination. This study conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, Chinese Periodical Database, Chinese Bio-Medicine Database, VIP, and DuXiu Database to identify relevant studies on the accuracy of prostigmin tests for diagnosing MG, covering publications from 1941 to 2021. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis found no heterogeneity caused by threshold effects but identified heterogeneity due to non-threshold effects. The combined sensitivity was 0.861 (95% CI: 0.831-0.888), and the combined specificity was 0.844 (95% CI: 0.816-0.870). The combined positive likelihood ratio was 5.496 (95% CI: 1.454-20.77), and the combined negative likelihood ratio was 0.237 (95% CI: 0.123-0.455). The area under the curve for diagnostic accuracy was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90), with Q* = 0.8520. The combined diagnostic odds ratio was 19.344 (95% CI: 4.327-86.488). In conclusion, the prostigmin test demonstrated good diagnostic value for MG.
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.