Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28981957›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

The role of high-frequency oscillations in epilepsy surgery planning.

David Gloss, Sarah J Nevitt, Richard Staba

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Association between Removal of High-Frequency Oscillations and the Effect of Epilepsy Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Networks through the lens of high-frequency oscillations.Frontiers in network physiology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David GlossCAMC Neurology, Charleston Area Medical Center, 415 Morris St, Suite 300, Charleston, USA, WV 25301.
Sarah J Nevitt
Richard Staba
Charleston Area Medical Center · USUniversity of Liverpool · GBUrologic Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpilepsy is a serious brain disorder characterized by recurrent unprovoked seizures. Approximately two-thirds of seizures can be controlled with antiepileptic medications (Kwan 2000). For some of the others, surgery can completely eliminate or significantly reduce the occurrence of disabling seizures. Localization of epileptogenic areas for resective surgery is far from perfect, and new tools are being investigated to more accurately localize the epileptogenic zone (the zone of the brain where the seizures begin) and improve the likelihood of freedom from postsurgical seizures. Recordings of pathological high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) may be one such tool.

objectivesTo assess the ability of HFOs to improve the outcomes of epilepsy surgery by helping to identify more accurately the epileptogenic areas of the brain. SEARCH

methodsFor the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (25 July 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 25 July 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 25 July 2016), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 25 July 2016), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, 25 July 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (25 July 2016), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (25 July 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that provided information on the outcomes of epilepsy surgery for at least six months and which used high-frequency oscillations in making decisions about epilepsy surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome of the review was the Engel Class Outcome System (class I = no disabling seizures, II = rare disabling seizures, III = worthwhile improvement, IV = no worthwhile improvement). Secondary outcomes were responder rate, International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) epilepsy surgery outcome, frequency of adverse events from any source and quality of life outcomes. We intended to analyse outcomes via an aggregated data fixed-effect model meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsTwo studies representing 11 participants met the inclusion criteria. Both studies were small non-randomised trials, with no control group and no blinding. The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. The combination of these two studies resulted in 11 participants who prospectively used ictal HFOs for epilepsy surgery decision making. Results of the postsurgical seizure freedom Engel class I to IV outcome were determined over a period of 12 to 38 months (average 23.4 months) and indicated that six participants had an Engel class I outcome (seizure freedom), two had class II (rare disabling seizures), three had class III (worthwhile improvement). No adverse effects were reported. Neither study compared surgical results guided by HFOs versus surgical results guided without HFOs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsNo reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of using HFOs in epilepsy surgery decision making at present.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingElectroencephalographyEpilepsyHumansNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicSeizuresTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28981957
PMCPMC6485644
OpenAlexW1579721414

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.