Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26695883›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Care delivery and self management strategies for children with epilepsy.

Nigel Fleeman, Peter M Bradley, Bruce Lindsay

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nigel FleemanLiverpool Reviews & Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, 2nd Floor, Sherrington Buildings, Ashton Street, Liverpool, UK, L69 3GE.
Peter M Bradley
Bruce Lindsay
Public Health Wales · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpilepsy care for children has been criticised for its lack of impact. Various service models and strategies have been developed in response to perceived inadequacies in care provision for children and their families.

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of any specialised or dedicated intervention for the care of children with epilepsy and their families to the effectiveness of usual care. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013,Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1988 to week 25, 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to 11 December 2013) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 11 December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each review author independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. MAIN

resultsWe included five interventions reported in seven study reports (of which only four studies of three interventions were designed as RCTs) in this review. They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children, children and parents, teenagers and parents, or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but each study had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed) and no single programme was independently evaluated by more than one study. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWhile each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes. No study appeared to have demonstrated any detrimental effects but the evidence in favour of any single programme was insufficient to make it possible to recommend one programme rather than another. More studies, carried out by independent research teams, are needed.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareSelf CareAdaptation, PsychologicalAdolescentChildControlled Before-After StudiesCounselingEpilepsyHumansParentsPatient Education as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf DisclosureTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26695883
OpenAlexW3161108778

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.