ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2025
Toward European harmonization of national myasthenia gravis registries: modified Delphi procedure-based expert consensus on collectable data.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 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.
- Development of the first myasthenia gravis patient registry in Latvia: a single-centre experience.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Patients with Myasthenia Gravis in the French Rare Disease Registry.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- A Delphi consensus on integrating novel therapies into the management of generalized myasthenia gravis.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder. Several new treatment concepts have emerged in recent years, but access to these treatments varies due to differing national reimbursement regulations, leading to disparities across Europe. This highlights the need for high-quality data collection by stakeholders to establish MG registries. A European MG registry could help bridge the treatment access gap across different countries, offering critical data to support regulatory decisions, foster international collaborations, and enhance clinical and epidemiological research. Several national MG registries already exist or are in development. To avoid duplication and ensure harmonization in data collection, a modified Delphi procedure was implemented to identify essential data elements for inclusion in national registries.
resultsFollowing a literature review, consultations with patient associations and pharmaceutical companies, and input from multiple European MG experts, 100 data elements were identified. Of these, 62 reached consensus for inclusion and classification, while only 1 item was agreed for exclusion. 30 items failed to reach the ≥ 80% agreement threshold and were excluded. Among the 62 accepted items, 21 were classified as mandatory data elements, 32 optional, and 9 items pertained to the informed consent form.
conclusionsThrough a modified Delphi procedure, consensus was successfully achieved. This consensus-based approach represents a crucial step toward harmonizing MG registries across Europe. The resulting dataset will facilitate the sharing of knowledge and enhance European collaborations. Furthermore, the harmonized data may assist in regulatory or reimbursement decisions regarding novel therapies, as well as address treatment access disparities between European countries.
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.