SynthesisCroatian medical journal2026
Health economic evaluations of myasthenia gravis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Croatian medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare costs and burden of myasthenia gravis for patients and society: a systematic review.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
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
aimTo systematically review the latest pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding the costs associated with myasthenia gravis (MG) care and treatment.
methodsWe searched the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PubMed for articles in English from any country reporting health economic analyses of pharmacological treatments, hospitalization, or surgical procedures related to MG.
resultsThe study included 31 articles showing a considerable variability in the costs and cost-effectiveness of MG treatments across regions, therapies, and health care settings. Traditional therapies such as plasma exchange (PLEX) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) differ notably in cost, with PLEX generally being less expensive. Newer clinically effective treatments such as efgartigimod and eculizumab raise concerns about their economic sustainability, whereas rituximab might be a more affordable alternative in certain contexts.
conclusionFuture research should compare cost-effectiveness across health care systems, incorporating local pricing and reimbursement, and collecting real-world data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41520205PMC12836010What 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.