ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing therapeutic decisions in generalized myasthenia gravis: Study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Treatment Preferences of Neurologists in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Conjoint Analysis Study.Neurology and therapy · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe therapeutic landscape in generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) has been continuously evolving in recent years, with over five products approved, each with different efficacy, safety, and administration profiles. With the availability of new targeted treatments, physicians are faced with the challenge of therapeutic decision-making tailored to traditional therapeutic goals, individual preferences, and personal experience, seeking optimal disease control with a positive safety profile. In this context of uncertainty and multiple novel choices, this study aims to provide insights into the preferred treatment choices of neurologists managing gMG and to identify demographic, professional or behavioral factors influencing the decision-making process.
methodsThis is a non-interventional, cross-sectional, web-based study involving 150 neurologists treating gMG patients in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Neurology. The primary endpoint will be to assess preferences for different gMG treatment attributes using a conjoint analysis to create hypothetical treatment scenarios. Therapeutic inertia, described as the lack of treatment initiation or intensification when therapeutic goals are not met, will be evaluated as a secondary endpoint through 7 case scenarios simulating real gMG clinical practice situations. Neurologists will also answer a survey composed of demographic, professional, and behavioral characteristics (user resistance behavior, care-related regret, burnout, risk attitude, empathy, work fulfilment, and personality traits) to recognize possible factors influencing decisions.
conclusionsThe study findings will contribute to better understanding of decision-making in gMG under a changing therapeutic landscape with multiple new targeted options, and will identify which factors have a role in affecting those decisions.
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.