ArticleDer Nervenarzt2016
[Impact of early benefit assessment on patients with epilepsy in Germany: Current healthcare provision and therapeutic needs].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Brivaracetam for add-on treatment in focal epilepsy].Der Nervenarzt · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases and represents a significant burden for patients, their families and society. In more than 75 % of patients anticonvulsant therapy consists of valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine or levetiracetam. There is a need for polytherapy in drug-refractory patients and they suffer from negative effects on quality of life and employment that is associated with high indirect costs. To allow a comprehensive treatment in this patient group, access to new anticonvulsants with novel modes of action is needed; however, all applications for new antiepileptic drugs failed to prove added benefits during the Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG) in Germany. One of the main reasons is the mandatory definition of a standard comparative therapy. It remains unclear whether there will be studies in the future which will fulfill the requirements of the current version of AMNOG. Observational studies after approval and marketing of new antiepileptic drugs could be better alternatives to prove added benefits for individual patients in the current German healthcare system.
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.