Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 910

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnosis and management of Guillain–Barré syndrome in ten steps

Open access
Leonhard, Sonja E., Mandarakas, Melissa R., Gondim, Francisco A. A., Bateman, Kathleen, Ferreira, Maria L. B., Cornblath, David R., van Doorn, Pieter A., Dourado, Mario E., Hughes, Richard A. C., Islam, Badrul, Kusunoki, Susumu, Pardo, Carlos A., Reisin, Ricardo, Sejvar, James J., Shahrizaila, Nortina, Soares, Cristiane, Umapathi, Thirugnanam, Wang, Yuzhong, Yiu, Eppie M., Willison, Hugh J., Jacobs, Bart C.·2019·Nature Reviews Neurology

Abstract

Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, but potentially fatal, immune-mediated disease of the peripheral nerves and nerve roots that is usually triggered by infections. The incidence of GBS can therefore increase during outbreaks of infectious diseases, as was seen during the Zika virus epidemics in 2013 in French Polynesia and 2015 in Latin America. Diagnosis and management of GBS can be complicated as its clinical presentation and disease course are heterogeneous, and no international clinical guidelines are currently available. To support clinicians, especially in the context of an outbreak, we have developed a globally applicable guideline for the diagnosis and management of GBS. The guideline is based on current literature and expert consensus, and has a ten-step structure to facilitate its use in clinical practice. We first provide an introduction to the diagnostic criteria, clinical variants and differential diagnoses of GBS. The ten steps then cover early recognition and diagnosis of GBS, admission to the intensive care unit, treatment indication and selection, monitoring and treatment of disease progression, prediction of clinical course and outcome, and management of complications and sequelae.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Cited by

See all 910

Metadata

Authors
Leonhard, S. E., Mandarakas, M. R., Gondim, F. A. A., Bateman, K., Ferreira, M. L. B., Cornblath, D. R., van Doorn, P. A., Dourado, M. E., Hughes, R. A. C., Islam, B., Kusunoki, S., Pardo, C. A., Reisin, R., Sejvar, J. J., Shahrizaila, N., Soares, C., Umapathi, T., Wang, Y., Yiu, E. M., Willison, H. J., & Jacobs, B. C.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neurology
Published
2019-09-20
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
671-683
ISSN
  • 1759-4758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4766
OpenAlex
W2973791718
Cited by
910
References
58
FWCI
17.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnosis and management of Guillain–Barré syndrome in ten steps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9
The paper
Leonhard, S. E., Mandarakas, M. R., Gondim, F. A. A., Bateman, K., Ferreira, M. L. B., Cornblath, D. R., van Doorn, P. A., Dourado, M. E., Hughes, R. A. C., Islam, B., Kusunoki, S., Pardo, C. A., Reisin, R., Sejvar, J. J., Shahrizaila, N., Soares, C., Umapathi, T., Wang, Y., Yiu, E. M., . . . Jacobs, B. C. (2019). Diagnosis and management of Guillain–Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nature Reviews Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.