Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25829372›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH): results of the national audit of adult epilepsy in the UK.

Peter A Dixon, Jamie J Kirkham, Anthony G Marson, Mike G Pearson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Peter A DixonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Clinical Sciences Centre, Liverpool, UK.
Jamie J KirkhamDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Anthony G MarsonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Clinical Sciences Centre, Liverpool, UK Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Aintree Health Outcomes Partnership, University of Liverpool, Clinical Sciences Centre, Liverpool, UK.
Mike G PearsonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Clinical Sciences Centre, Liverpool, UK Aintree Health Outcomes Partnership, University of Liverpool, Clinical Sciences Centre, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAbout 100,000 people present to hospitals each year in England with an epileptic seizure. How they are managed is unknown; thus, the National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH) set out to assess prior care, management of the acute event and follow-up of these patients. This paper describes the data from the second audit conducted in 2013.

setting154 emergency departments (EDs) across the UK.

participantsData from 4544 attendances (median age of 45 years, 57% men) showed that 61% had a prior diagnosis of epilepsy, 12% other neurological problems and 22% were first seizure cases. Each ED identified 30 consecutive adult cases presenting due to a seizure. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Details were recorded of the patient's prior care, management at hospital and onward referral to neurological specialists onto an online database. Descriptive results are reported at national level.

resultsOf those with epilepsy, 498 (18%) were on no antiepileptic drug therapy and 1330 (48%) were on monotherapy. Assessments were often incomplete and witness histories were sought in only 759 (75%) of first seizure patients, 58% were seen by a senior doctor and 57% were admitted. For first seizure patients, advice on further seizure management was given to 264 (27%) and only 55% were referred to a neurologist or epilepsy specialist. For each variable, there was wide variability among sites that was not explicable. For the sites who partook in both audits, there was a trend towards better care in 2013, but this was small and dwarfed by the intersite variability.

conclusionsThese results have parallels with the Sentinel Audit of Stroke performed a decade earlier. There is wide intersite variability in care covering the entire care pathway, and a need for better organised and accessible care for these patients.

Indexed as

AdultAnticonvulsantsDirective CounselingEmergency Service, HospitalEpilepsyFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMedical AuditMiddle AgedNeurologyPatient AdmissionQuality Indicators, Health CareReferral and ConsultationUnited KingdomAnticonvulsantsACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINEAUDITcare pathwaysseizure

Identifiers

PMID25829372
PMCPMC4386236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.