ArticleJournal of neurology2013
Treatment of epilepsy in daily clinical practice: have outcomes improved over the past 10 years?
Article in Journal of neurology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmacological intervention for irritability, aggression, and self-injury in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Observational
- Drug therapy problems and treatment satisfaction among ambulatory patients with epilepsy in a specialized hospital in Ethiopia.PloS one · 2020Article
- Sudden cardiac arrest in people with epilepsy in the community: Circumstances and risk factors.Neurology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the past decade, many new antiepileptic drugs have become available, but their influence on patient outcomes in daily practice is not well known. In a community-based study, we assessed changes in epilepsy treatment and outcomes over a 10-year period. We compared two cross-sectional community-based samples that were obtained from the same Dutch suburban region in 2000 and 2010 using pharmacy records for recruitment, including 344 and 248 epilepsy patients, respectively. The main outcome was self-reported quality of life (QoL, using the QOLIE-31). Potential predictors of QoL (adverse effects, seizure control, seizure acceptability, demographic, epilepsy- or treatment-related determinants) were assessed by multivariable linear regression. New antiepileptic drugs were used by 9 % of patients in 2000 and 34 % in 2010, P < 0.001. More than 80 % in both samples reported to be treated by a neurologist. We found no significant differences in QOLIE-31 scores (72.57 vs. 72.44), or in the proportion of patients with complete seizure control (51 vs. 54 %), between the two study samples. Seizure control and adverse effects were important independent predictors of quality of life, explaining 58 % of the variance. We found no evidence that in this community the QoL of epilepsy patients has improved in the last decade, despite unrestricted availability of healthcare resources, including accessibility to new AEDs. The relatively low proportion with complete seizure control and the high rate of adverse effects in these community-based samples suggest that the effectiveness of epilepsy treatment is still far from optimal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23893002What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.