Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25124385›Full record

Observational studyBMC neurology2014

Withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs in glioma patients after long-term seizure freedom: design of a prospective observational study.

Johan A F Koekkoek, Melissa Kerkhof, Linda Dirven, Jan J Heimans, Tjeerd J Postma, Maaike J Vos, Jacoline E C Bromberg, Martin J van den Bent, Jaap C Reijneveld, Martin J B Taphoorn

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Management of epilepsy in brain tumors.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. What is New in the Management of Epilepsy in Gliomas?Current treatment options in neurology · 2015
    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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Johan A F Koekkoek
Melissa Kerkhof
Linda Dirven
Jan J Heimans
Tjeerd J Postma
Maaike J Vos
Jacoline E C Bromberg
Martin J van den Bent
Jaap C Reijneveld
Martin J B Taphoorn
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpilepsy is common in patients with a glioma. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment, but may cause side effects and may negatively impact neurocognitive functioning and quality of life. Besides antiepileptic drugs, anti-tumour treatment, which currently consists of surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, may contribute to seizure control as well. In glioma patients with seizure freedom after anti-tumour therapy the question emerges whether AEDs should be continued, particularly in the case where anti-tumour treatment has been successful. We propose to explore the possibility of AED withdrawal in glioma patients with long-term seizure freedom after anti-tumour therapy and without signs of tumour progression. METHODS/

designWe initiate a prospective, observational study exploring the decision-making process on the withdrawal or continuation of AEDs in low-grade and anaplastic glioma patients with stable disease and prolonged seizure freedom after anti-tumour treatment, and the effects of AED withdrawal or continuation on seizure freedom. We recruit participants through the outpatient clinics of three tertiary referral centers for brain tumour patients in The Netherlands. The patient and the treating physician make a shared decision to either withdraw or continue AED treatment. Over a one-year period, we aim to include 100 glioma patients. We expect approximately half of the participants to be willing to withdraw AEDs. The primary outcome measures are: 1) the outcome of the shared-decision making on AED withdrawal or continuation, and decision related arguments, and 2) seizure freedom at 12 months and 24 months of follow-up. We will also evaluate seizure type and frequency in case of seizure recurrence, as well as neurological symptoms, adverse effects related to AED treatment or withdrawal, other anti-tumour treatments and tumour progression. DISCUSSION: This study addresses two issues that are currently unexplored. First, it will explore the willingness to withdraw AEDs in glioma patients, and second, it will assess the risk of seizure recurrence in case AEDs are withdrawn in this specific patient population. This study aims to contribute to a more tailored AED treatment, and prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful use of AEDs in glioma patients.

Indexed as

AnticonvulsantsBrain NeoplasmsGliomaHumansProspective StudiesResearch DesignSeizuresAnticonvulsants

Identifiers

PMID25124385
PMCPMC4236644
OpenAlexW2103714519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.