ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2026
A Delphi consensus on integrating novel therapies into the management of generalized myasthenia gravis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The treatment landscape for myasthenia gravis (MG) has evolved with the introduction of novel therapies. An international consensus on patient selection criteria and optimal time to initiate these therapies could improve clinical outcomes and reduce delays for likely beneficiaries. Objective: This Delphi consensus was undertaken by MG specialists from selected European countries to explore gaps in the application of national guidelines and elicit expert opinion in practice. Design: A mixed-method approach was used; qualitative and quantitative study phases were combined to explore key concepts and reach consensus. Methods: The qualitative first phase involved seven healthcare professionals (HCPs) and two patient advocacy group representatives who participated in idea generation. Findings from this phase supported the development of a Delphi survey, which was completed by 16 HCPs in two rounds. This constituted the quantitative second phase of the study. Consensus was defined as ⩾70% agreement or disagreement on a 6-point Likert scale. Results: In total, 65% of statements achieved consensus. Key findings include-HCPs highly regard international guidelines but find critical discrepancies between the "ideal" scenario and current clinical practices. Consensus was achieved on the importance of incorporating patient-related quality of life in decision-making, despite limited current methods. Consensus was obtained on steroid tapering and treatment-switch criteria based on steroid dose and duration. Consensus was also achieved on suitable patient profiles, including those with persistent symptoms, severe side effects, or needing rapid control. Conclusion: This study recognized that guidelines offer valuable direction but do not replace individualized treatment decisions. This study identified the areas of alignment and opportunities to refine patient selection criteria and treatment-switch categories, particularly to integrate novel therapy use in MG management, highlighting a path to a more patient-centric approach.
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.