ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Plasmapheresis and Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Acute Guillain-Barre Syndrome Management in Emergency Departments.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital Coordination and Protocols Using Serum and Peripheral Blood Cells from Patients and Healthy Donors in a Longitudinal Study of Guillain-Barré Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Shaping the role of plasma exchange in autoimmune neurology: lessons learned from 67 years and over 90,000 procedures.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a severe autoimmune neuropathy that has to be treated quickly and efficiently in emergency situations, when both cost and effectiveness are vital.
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in managing acute GBS in emergency departments. METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study conducted from January to December 2023 evaluated the treatment of adults with acute GBS using IVIG or plasmapheresis. Cost analysis was done in conjunction with clinical outcomes assessment, such as improvement in motor function, length of recovery, and length of hospital stay. Each therapy group consisted of 39 individuals, and data were gathered via patient evaluations and medical records. Through statistical analysis, the two regimens' costs and results were compared.
resultsPlasmapheresis proved significantly more cost-effective than IVIG, with an average treatment cost of 295,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR) per patient versus 587,000 PKR for IVIG. Plasmapheresis showed a greater mean improvement in motor function (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score change of 5.93 ± 2.17) compared to IVIG (4.98 ± 2.34), though the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.091). Recovery time was slightly shorter with plasmapheresis, averaging 8.26 ± 1.53 weeks versus 8.74 ± 1.87 weeks for IVIG (p=0.282). Hospital length of stay was marginally reduced with plasmapheresis (12.16 ± 3.28 days) compared to IVIG (12.95 ± 3.64 days, p=0.302). The time to reach maximum improvement was also shorter with plasmapheresis (6.51 ± 1.24 weeks) compared to IVIG (7.08 ± 1.32 weeks, p=0.260). Additionally, plasmapheresis had a lower complication rate, with 4 out of 39 patients (10.25%) experiencing complications, compared to 8 out of 39 patients (20.51%) with IVIG.
conclusionPlasmapheresis is more cost-effective than IVIG for acute GBS management in emergency departments, offering similar or potentially superior clinical outcomes at a lower cost.
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.