ReviewNeurology. Clinical practice2026
Comprehensive Care Goals in Myasthenia Gravis: Expert Consensus Recommendations Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.
Review in Neurology. Clinical practice, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesGoals for comprehensive care are important in the management of individualized treatment for patients with myasthenia gravis (MG), a disease with variable presentation and degrees of severity. Yet there is limited guidance on how comprehensive care should be achieved and implemented. We present global consensus recommendations for comprehensive care of patients with MG.
methodsAn international panel of experts was formed, and a targeted literature review was conducted to inform the recommendations. A steering committee selected relevant topics and draft recommendations were developed for each topic. Formal consensus was achieved using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Seventeen panelists from North America, Europe, and Asia rated statements online from 1 ("extremely inappropriate") to 9 ("extremely appropriate") and provided comments and suggestions for modifications. The methodologist modified statements for further rating, based on panel scores and feedback. Statements achieving agreement as appropriate by 4 rounds of rating were accepted.
resultsConsensus was achieved for 21 statements. Statement 1 defined the ongoing treatment goal: "to work toward, achieve, and sustain minimal symptoms and treatment-related adverse events, with a patient-acceptable quality of life (using validated measures)". Subsequent statements described implementation of this goal and covered: early control of symptoms; establishing and sustaining a treatment goal; vaccination and screening for infection; family planning/pregnancy; management of fatigue and comorbidities; and management of impending crisis and crisis. DISCUSSION: Expert consensus was achieved on a series of global recommendations for comprehensive care goals, which has implications for improved disease outcomes and health-related quality of life for patients with MG. These recommendations will require updating as treatment paradigms evolve.
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.