ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2016
Therapeutic Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Childhood Absence Epilepsy.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seizure freedom and therapy discontinuation in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy: retrospective cohort study from a tertiary epilepsy outpatient service.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Outcome and Associated Factors of Epilepsy Among Children at Hospitals of North-West Ethiopia.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2023Article
- Clinical and Instrumental Follow-Up of Childhood Absence Epilepsy (CAE): Exploration of Prognostic Factors.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pretreatment Source Location and Functional Connectivity Network Correlated With Therapy Response in Childhood Absence Epilepsy: A Magnetoencephalography Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeChildhood absence epilepsy (CAE) is one of the most common types of pediatric epilepsy. It is generally treated with ethosuximide (ESM), valproic acid (VPA), or lamotrigine (LTG), but the efficacy and adverse effects of these drugs remain controversial. This study compared initial therapy treatment outcomes, including VPA-LTG combination, and assessed clinical factors that may predict treatment response and prognosis.
methodsSixty-seven patients with typical CAE were retrospectively enrolled at the Korea University Medical Center. We reviewed patients' clinical characteristics, including age of seizure onset, seizure-free interval, duration of seizure-free period, freedom from treatment failure, breakthrough seizures frequency, and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings.
resultsThe age at seizure onset was 7.9±2.7 years (mean±SD), and follow-up duration was 4.4±3.7 years. Initially, 22 children were treated with ESM (32.8%), 23 with VPA (34.3%), 14 with LTG (20.9%), and 8 with VPA-LTG combination (11.9%). After 48 months of therapy, the rate of freedom from treatment failure was significantly higher for the VPA-LTG combination therapy than in the three monotherapy groups (p=0.012). The treatment dose administrated in the VPA-LTG combination group was less than that in the VPA and LTG monotherapy groups. The shorter interval to loss of 3-Hz spike-and-wave complexes and the presence of occipital intermittent rhythmic delta activity on EEG were significant factors predicting good treatment response.
conclusionsThis study showed that low-dose VPA-LTG combination therapy has a good efficacy and fewer side effects than other treatments, and it should thus be considered as a firstline therapy in absence epilepsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.