ArticleTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2025
Practitioner's perception of myasthenia gravis management recommendations in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a chronic, fluctuating disease whose unique natural history complicates designing therapeutic trials. The evidence on which many MG management recommendations are based is limited. Objective: To determine the degree of knowledge, agreement, and application of internationally recognized recommendations for managing MG in actual practice. Design: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among Spanish neurologists specializing in MG. Methods: The survey assessed knowledge, agreement, and application of recommendations, along with the degree of agreement with international consensus definitions from the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America. Results: Fifty-three neurologists (mean age 45.4 years, 53% men) attended an average of 3.6 patients with MG daily. In 40 out of 61 recommendations, at least 90% of the neurologists were aware of the recommendation. The least known recommendations dealt with juvenile MG and MG in pregnancy. There was no majority agreement in two recommendations (for MG in pregnancy and the use of intravenous immunoglobulin in mild or ocular MG). The implementation of the recommendations was high except for the ones related to plasma exchange, thymectomy, methotrexate, or eculizumab. Conclusion: The recommendations are well-known, agreed upon, and applied. However, the evidence, consensus, and knowledge dissemination need reinforcement regarding aspects such as the management of juvenile MG, MG in pregnancy, or the use of certain treatments.
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.