SynthesisChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2015
Meta-analysis of vagus nerve stimulation treatment for epilepsy: correlation between device setting parameters and acute response.
Synthesis in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Vagus nerve stimulation for focal seizures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2022Pooled it
- Autonomic and neural responses to varying transcutaneous cervical electrical stimulation parameters.Bioelectronic medicine · 2026Article
- Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Neuromodulation: Evolution from Bench to Bedside.Neurology international · 2026Article
- Application of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in monitored anesthesia care during foraminoscopy: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Effects of Stimulus Frequency, Intensity, and Sex on the Autonomic Response to Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Implantable vagus nerve stimulator settings and short-term adverse effects in epileptic dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- A Review of Parameter Settings for Invasive and Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Applied in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Effect of Short-Term Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (tVNS) on Brain Processing of Food Cues: An Electrophysiological Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Brain stimulation in obesity.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2017Review
- Late-onset jaw and teeth pain mimicking trigeminal neuralgia associated with chronic vagal nerve stimulation: case series and review of the literature.BMC neurology · 2017Review
- Parametric characterization of neural activity in the locus coeruleus in response to vagus nerve stimulation.Experimental neurology · 2017Article
- Saudi Arabian Consensus Statement on Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Refractory Epilepsy.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an adjunctive neurophysiological treatment for those patients who have pharmacoresistant or surgically resistant partial onset epilepsy.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the effects of high and low stimulation paradigms on a responder rate of ≥50 and ≥75% reduction in seizure frequency and associated adverse effects in adults and children.
methodA literature search was performed using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies using vagus nerve stimulation published from January 1980 until July 2014 for medically or surgically resistant partial onset seizures, in children and adults. No restrictions on languages were imposed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors reviewed and selected studies for inclusion and exclusion. The search identified five randomized control trials that fit with our inclusion criteria. The following outcomes were evaluated: 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency, 75% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency, and adverse effects.
resultsFour randomized controlled trials were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Results indicate high stimulation is more effective in adult patients who experienced ≥50 and ≥75% reduction in seizure frequency with a significant difference within both high and low stimulation groups. In children, there was no significant difference between the two groups and patients with ≥50 % reduction in seizures. Adverse effects such as hoarseness and dyspnea were more common in the high stimulation group where the remaining side effects were not statistically different among both groups.
conclusionHigh stimulation is more effective than low stimulation in producing a greater reduction in seizure frequency in patients with medically and surgically resistant epilepsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26493055What 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.