Treatment of the Guillain-Barré Syndrome

Kleyweg, R. P.; Meché, F.G.A. van der

doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-9078-4_13

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 80 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our patients, mean ages in groups 1 and 2 were 10 and 8 years, respectively. Although the number of patients older than 10 years in group 1 was double that in group 2, and although 4 Korinthenberg and Monting's retrospective multicenter study on the natural history of childhood Guillain-Barre syndrome found maximum disability grade at presentation to be the most powerful prognostic factor.4° Our findings confirm those of Korinthenberg and Monting. The mean disability score at presentation in group 1 was significantly higher (4.64) than in group 2 (3.0), consistent with a higher degree of disability in group 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Childhood Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Clinical and Electrophysiologic Features Predictive of Outcome

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hospital records of 27 children with the diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the time to recovery, patients were divided into two groups: group 1 consisted of children whose times to complete or partial recovery extended beyond 2 months from onset of the disease; group 2 consisted of children who attained a full recovery within 2 months from onset of the disease. The clinical and electrophysiologic features of the two groups were statistically compared for their predictive value of outcome. Three clinical features (maximum disability score at presentation, intubation, and cranial nerve involvement) were predictive of poor outcome, whereas one electrophysiologic feature (conduction block) was predictive of favorable outcome. There was also a significant correlation between maximum disability score at presentation and the probability of intubation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The mean average time between onset of symptoms and performing electrophysiologic studies for groups 1 and 2 was 10 days (range, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] days).…”

Section: Electrophysiologic Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%