ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
Immunoglobulin unresponsive Guillain-Barré syndrome: rinse or repeat? A systematic review.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Progress in Diagnosis, Biomarkers, Neuroimaging and Management.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Plasma exchange following immunoglobulins for Guillain-Barré-Syndrome: a persisting problematic practice?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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Severe Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) patients may not show improvement after a single course of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy. Current treatment options include either a second course of IVIg or therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). This systematic review aims to evaluate the current literature on the use of a second course of IVIg or TPE in patients who fail to show clinical improvement after the first IVIg course. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Medline databases up until 26 October 2023. Studies that evaluated adult patients with confirmed GBS who have failed one full course of IVIg and subsequently received either repeat IVIg or TPE were included. Risk of bias was performed using study-specific checklists. A narrative synthesis of results is presented. Results: A total of 37 articles were identified (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), 3 observational and 33 case reports/series), consisting of 422 patients in total. 12 studies evaluated repeat IVIg and 24 studies evaluated TPE after IVIg. There was no superiority of a repeat course of IVIg or TPE in all clinical outcome measures. Conclusions: The evidence suggests with a low degree of certainty that there is no beneficial effect of further IVIg in unresponsive GBS. The quality of evidence regarding TPE after IVIg is insufficient to suggest any efficacy due to a lack of RCTs. We recommend standardised case reporting with consideration for a multinational case registry and RCTs to determine the efficacy of TPE after initial IVIg unresponsiveness.
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.