ReviewEpilepsia2017
WONOEP appraisal: Development of epilepsy biomarkers-What we can learn from our patients?
Review in Epilepsia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective Evaluation of Ghrelin and Des-Acyl Ghrelin Plasma Levels in Children with Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy: Evidence for Reduced Ghrelin-to-Des-Acyl Ghrelin Ratio in Generalized Epilepsies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of predictive, preventive and precision medicine strategies in epilepsy.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2020Review
- Myelin Pathology Beyond White Matter in Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) Cortical Tubers.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2020Article
- Pathological high frequency oscillations associate with increased GABA synaptic activity in pediatric epilepsy surgery patients.Neurobiology of disease · 2020Article
- Epileptogenesis, traumatic brain injury, and biomarkers.Neurobiology of disease · 2019Review
- Nonictal EEG biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment.Epilepsia open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCurrent medications for patients with epilepsy work in only two of three patients. For those medications that do work, they only suppress seizures. They treat the symptoms, but do not modify the underlying disease, forcing patients to take these drugs with significant side effects, often for the rest of their lives. A major limitation in our ability to advance new therapeutics that permanently prevent, reduce the frequency of, or cure epilepsy comes from a lack of understanding of the disease coupled with a lack of reliable biomarkers that can predict who has or who will get epilepsy.
methodsThe main goal of this report is to present a number of approaches for identifying reliable biomarkers from observing patients with brain disorders that have a high probability of producing epilepsy.
resultsA given biomarker, or more likely a profile of biomarkers, will have both a quantity and a time course during epileptogenesis that can be used to predict who will get the disease, to confirm epilepsy as a diagnosis, to identify coexisting pathologies, and to monitor the course of treatments. SIGNIFICANCE: Additional studies in patients and animal models could identify common and clinically valuable biomarkers to successfully translate animal studies into new and effective clinical trials.
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.