Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19326090›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2009

[Seizures and epilepsies after stroke].

H M Hamer

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

H M HamerNeurologische Universitätsklinik, UKGM Marburg, Marburg, Germany. hamer@med.uni-marburg.de
Philipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epilepsies after stroke represent 20% of all adult-onset epilepsies and exhibit special characteristics with respect to diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Patients are frequently amnestic for their seizures the signs of which can be very subtle. Postictal pareses and confusional states can last for days, which further complicate diagnosis. Single seizures after stroke were reported in 2% to 10% of cases, and community-based studies found epilepsies in 3% to 4% of stroke patients. Analyses of subgroups identified epilepsy risks of 3% after ischemic infarction, 6% to 10% after intracerebral hemorrhage, and 9% after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Status epilepticus developed in less than 1% of stroke patients. Besides etiology, further risk factors for epilepsy comprise: remote seizures (latency >2 weeks, risk of recurrence >50%) more than early seizures (latency <2 weeks, risk of recurrence <50%), extent of stroke, cortical involvement, and degree of neurological deficit. The first appearance of seizures in patients older than 60 years represents a risk factor for future stroke with a hazard ratio of 2.89.There is currently no sufficient evidence for starting AED treatment before seizures occur. The benefit is still unclear of starting AED after a single early post-stroke seizure. Most authors recommend AED treatment after the second seizure but also after a first remote seizure because of the high risk of seizure recurrence in these situations. Possible pharmacokinetic interactions should be considered when choosing AED. Especially the first-generation AED carry the potential to interact with comedication, which is usually seen in stroke patients receiving substances such warfarin and salicylates. Only very few studies investigate specific AED exclusively in stroke patients. Lamotrigine and gabapentin have been successfully tested in these patients.

Indexed as

EpilepsyHumansStroke

Identifiers

PMID19326090
OpenAlexW2299905782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.