ArticleScientific reports2025
Unusual presentations of myasthenia gravis and misdiagnosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Current status and challenges of biologic targeted therapy for myasthenia gravis in China.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2026Review
- Social support in Chinese patients with myasthenia gravis and analysis of related factors: a cross-sectional study.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Myasthenia gravis with dysphagia as the first symptom and misdiagnosed as anxiety-depressive state: a case report.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of myasthenia gravis-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myasthenia gravis (MG) poses diagnostic challenges due to its diverse clinical presentations. Diagnosing MG remains complex despite advancements, necessitating further understanding of its diverse clinical profiles. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 290 MG cases. Patient demographics, symptomatology, and diagnostic outcomes were reviewed. Patients were categorized into two groups: those displaying classical presentations and those manifesting unusual presentations. The patients with unusual presentations were comprehensively evaluated and the demographic and clinical characteristics of the two groups were compared. In our study of 290 patients with MG, 20 presented with unusual manifestations (6.9%). These included isolated dropped head, bilateral facial weakness, distal limb weakness (e.g., foot and hand drop), weakness of limb-girdle muscles, and isolated ocular findings without ptosis. When patients were categorized into two groups based on their initial symptoms, no significant differences in demographic and clinical features were observed between the classical and unusual groups, except for a higher prevalence of anti-MuSK antibodies and more frequent administration of rituximab in patients with unusual presentations. Recognizing unusual MG presentations is crucial for timely management. Our study underscores the diverse clinical spectrum of MG, emphasizing the need for nuanced diagnostic approaches and prompt intervention.
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.