ArticleAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology2026
Women and Myasthenia Gravis.
Article in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractMyasthenia gravis (MG) is a prototypical antibody-mediated autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction, characterized by fluctuating skeletal muscle weakness and substantial morbidity. Although therapeutic advances have markedly improved survival and long-term outcomes, MG is not a gender-homogeneous condition. Women are disproportionately affected, exhibit a distinct bimodal age distribution, and experience the disease within unique biological and psychosocial contexts that shape presentation, disease course, quality of life, and treatment response. Accumulating evidence highlights sex-specific differences in immune reactivity, hormonal influences, thymic pathology, clinical severity, fatigue burden, and patient-reported outcomes. Notably, women consistently report poorer quality of life despite comparable disease severity. Reproductive health introduces additional complexity, as pregnancy planning, contraception, teratogenic risk, postpartum exacerbation, and neonatal complications profoundly influence clinical decision-making and patient autonomy. Despite these well-recognized disparities, sex-specific considerations remain insufficiently integrated into routine care and are strikingly underrepresented in clinical trial design. Most MG trials fail to stratify outcomes by sex, account for sex-dependent pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics, or include pregnancy-relevant populations, resulting in critical evidence gaps. This narrative review synthesizes current knowledge on gender-related pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical phenotypes, and life stage-specific management of MG, with particular emphasis on the reproductive years. It also briefly examines the evolving role of novel biological therapies, including complement inhibitors, neonatal Fc receptor inhibitors, and B-cell-directed agents, which offer promise for more targeted and potentially safer treatment paradigms. Systematic gender-stratified analyses, dedicated pregnancy registries, and proactive, physician-led counselling are essential to advancing equitable, evidence-based care for women living with MG.
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.