↓ Skip to main content

Thymectomy in nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis - systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Thymectomy in nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis - systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13023-018-0837-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antônio J. M. Cataneo, Gilmar Felisberto, Daniele C. Cataneo

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate by means of a systematic review, the efficacy of thymectomy as compared to medical treatment for non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis (MG). Medline, Embase, and Lilacs were searched for experimental and observational studies that compared non-surgical (drug therapy) and surgical treatment of non-thymomatous MG (thymectomy performed by the transsternal approach). Inclusion criteria were: studies that compared the two types of treatment and had at least 10 adult patients in each group. Exclusion criteria were articles published before 1970, as well as those that included patients treated before 1950. The outcomes evaluated were: remission, and improvement rates. RevMan 5.3 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used. When the heterogeneity between the studies was greater than 75%, a meta-analysis was not performed according to RevMan guidelines. The total number of patients evaluated in 19 articles selected was 5841 (2911 surgical and 2930 non-surgical). Two included randomized clinical trials showed superiority of the surgical treatment over the non-surgical. Four retrospective studies with 379 patients paired by gender, age, and other confounders, also showed superiority of surgical treatment (OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.25 to 7.44; I2 = 20%). In meta-analyses, remission assessed in 17 studies (5686 patients) was greater in patients who underwent surgical treatment (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.05; I2 = 56%). For improvement assessed in 13 studies (3063 patients) were not appropriate to carry out the meta-analysis due to the high heterogeneity among the studies in the outcome (87%). Thymectomy may be considered effective in the treatment for non-thymomatous MG, with remission rate higher than for non-surgical treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 15%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Unknown 8 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,097,900
of 13,218,736 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,134
of 1,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,534
of 266,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,218,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.