The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravenous Immune Globulin and Plasma Exchange in Guillain–Barré Syndrome
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The subacute demyelinating polyneuropathy known as Guillain-Barré syndrome improves more rapidly with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone. We conducted a multicenter trial to determine whether intravenous immune globulin is as effective as the more complicated treatment with plasma exchange. METHODS: To enter the study, patients had to have had Guillain-Barré syndrome for less than two weeks and had to be unable to walk independently. They were randomly assigned to receive either five plasma exchanges (each of 200 to 250 ml per kilogram of body weight) or five doses of a preparation of intravenous immune globulin (0.4 g per kilogram per day). The predefined outcome measure was improvement at four weeks by at least one grade on a seven-point scale of motor function. RESULTS: After 150 patients had been treated, strength had improved by one grade or more in 34 percent of those treated with plasma exchange, as compared with 53 percent of those treated with immune globulin (difference, 19 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 3 percent to 34 percent; P = 0.024). The median time to improvement by one grade was 41 days with plasma exchange and 27 days with immune globulin therapy (P = 0.05). The immune globulin group had significantly fewer complications and less need for artificial ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In the acute Guillain-Barré syndrome, treatment with intravenous immune globulin is at least as effective as plasma exchange and may be superior.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cited by
Schnaar, R. L., Gerardy-Schahn, R., & Hildebrandt, H. (2014) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00033.2013 · Cited by 745
Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré syndrome
Hughes, R. A., Swan, A. V., & van Doorn, P. A. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002063.pub6 · Cited by 721
Peripheral neuropathies and anti-glycolipid antibodies
Willison, H. J. (2002) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awf272 · Cited by 710
van der Mech�, F. G. A., & van Doorn, P. A. (1995) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410370704 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Meché, F. G. A., Schmitz, P. I. M., & the Dutch Guillain–Barré Study Group*
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1992-04-23
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 1123-1129
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2095788709
- Cited by
- 1,143
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 36.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravenous Immune Globulin and Plasma Exchange in Guillain–Barré Syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199204233261705
- The paper
- van der Meché, F. G. A., Schmitz, P. I. M., & the Dutch Guillain–Barré Study Group*. (1992). A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravenous Immune Globulin and Plasma Exchange in Guillain–Barré Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199204233261705
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.