ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Treatment Preferences of Neurologists in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Conjoint Analysis Study.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 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.
- Patient preferences and willingness-to-pay for therapy in generalized myasthenia gravis: a large-scale discrete choice experiment in China.Frontiers in immunology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGeneralized myasthenia gravis (gMG) is a chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder for which treatment decision-making is increasingly complex due to the emergence of biologic targeted therapies. This study aimed to evaluate neurologists' treatment preferences in acetylcholine receptor seropositive gMG using conjoint analysis to simulate real-world clinical decision-making.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, web-based study among neurologists involved in the management of gMG in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Neurology. Participants were presented with eight hypothetical treatment scenarios comprising five key attributes: intensity of improvement, onset of action, duration of effect, adverse events, and route/frequency of administration. Utility values and importance of each attribute were estimated using ordinary least squares regression. Demographic, professional, and behavioral characteristics were assessed to explore variability in preference patterns.
resultsA total of 149 neurologists participated in the study. The mean age was 39.0 (SD 9.4) years, and 54.4% were male. Participants had a mean of 9.9 years (8.4) of experience treating patients with MG. The most valued treatment attribute was intensity of improvement (mean relative importance: 38.6%), followed by onset of action (21.5%) and duration of effect (17.4%). At the individual level, route and frequency of administration accounted for up to 21.9% of decision weight in some participants. Preferences were consistent across neuromuscular specialists and general neurologists but differed based on empathy and conscientiousness. Model fit was robust (Pearson's R = 1.000, p < 0.001).
conclusionsNeurologists treating gMG placed the highest value on rapid and clinically meaningful symptom improvement, consistent with the therapeutic goals of emerging targeted therapies. However, substantial heterogeneity in preferences, especially regarding administration burden, emphasizes the need for individualized approaches and shared decision-making.
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.