Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29340584›Full record

ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2018

Long-interval intracortical inhibition as biomarker for epilepsy: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study.

Prisca R Bauer, Annika A de Goede, William M Stern, Adam D Pawley, Fahmida A Chowdhury, Robert M Helling, Romain Bouet, Stiliyan N Kalitzin, Gerhard H Visser, Sanjay M Sisodiya and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Prisca R BauerNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Annika A de GoedeDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
William M SternNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Adam D PawleyInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Fahmida A ChowdhuryNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Robert M HellingStichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands.
Romain BouetLyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM U1028 - CNRS UMR5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon1, Brain Dynamics and Cognition Team, Centre Hospitalier Le Vinatier (Bât. 452), 95 Bd Pinel, 69500 Bron, France.
Stiliyan N KalitzinStichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands.
Gerhard H VisserStichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands.
Sanjay M SisodiyaNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
John C RothwellNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Mark P RichardsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Michel J A M van PuttenDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
Josemir W SanderNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
UCL Biomedical Research Centre · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLStichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland · NLUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N026063/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cortical excitability, as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electromyography, is a potential biomarker for the diagnosis and follow-up of epilepsy. We report on long-interval intracortical inhibition data measured in four different centres in healthy controls (n = 95), subjects with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (n = 40) and with refractory focal epilepsy (n = 69). Long-interval intracortical inhibition was measured by applying two supra-threshold stimuli with an interstimulus interval of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 ms and calculating the ratio between the response to the second (test stimulus) and to the first (conditioning stimulus). In all subjects, the median response ratio showed inhibition at all interstimulus intervals. Using a mixed linear-effects model, we compared the long-interval intracortical inhibition response ratios between the different subject types. We conducted two analyses; one including data from the four centres and one excluding data from Centre 2, as the methods in this centre differed from the others. In the first analysis, we found no differences in long-interval intracortical inhibition between the different subject types. In all subjects, the response ratios at interstimulus intervals 100 and 150 ms showed significantly more inhibition than the response ratios at 50, 200 and 250 ms. Our second analysis showed a significant interaction between interstimulus interval and subject type (P = 0.0003). Post hoc testing showed significant differences between controls and refractory focal epilepsy at interstimulus intervals of 100 ms (P = 0.02) and 200 ms (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between controls and refractory generalized epilepsy groups or between the refractory generalized and focal epilepsy groups. Our results do not support the body of previous work that suggests that long-interval intracortical inhibition is significantly reduced in refractory focal and genetic generalized epilepsy. Results from the second analysis are even in sharper contrast with previous work, showing inhibition in refractory focal epilepsy at 200 ms instead of facilitation previously reported. Methodological differences, especially shorter intervals between the pulse pairs, may have contributed to our inability to reproduce previous findings. Based on our results, we suggest that long-interval intracortical inhibition as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation and electromyography is unlikely to have clinical use as a biomarker of epilepsy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBiomarkersCerebral CortexChildElectromyographyEpilepsyEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeural InhibitionRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBiomarkerscortical excitabilityLICIpaired pulserefractoryTMS

Identifiers

PMID29340584
PMCPMC5837684
OpenAlexW2783652445

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.