Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26493055›Full record

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.

S Ghani, J Vilensky, B Turner, R S Tubbs, M Loukas

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

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

  1. Vagus nerve stimulation for focal seizures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Brain stimulation in obesity.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2017
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

S GhaniDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
J VilenskyDepartment of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Fort Wayne, IN, USA.
B TurnerDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, St. George's University, Grenada, WI, USA.
R S TubbsDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, St. George's University, Grenada, WI, USA.
M LoukasDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, St. George's University, Grenada, WI, USA. mloukas@sgu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultDatabases, BibliographicEpilepsyFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeVagus Nerve StimulationAdultsChildrenEpilepsyNCPVagus nerve stimulationVNS

Identifiers

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.