Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29493780›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.

Nigel Fleeman, Peter M Bradley

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Taking care of myself in a different and broken world: self-care practices of adolescents on dialysis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nigel FleemanLiverpool Reviews & Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, 2nd Floor, Sherrington Buildings, Ashton Street, Liverpool, UK, L69 3GE.
Peter M Bradley

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies.

objectivesTo assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, 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), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN

resultsOur review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for 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 all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,. 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, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.

Indexed as

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

Identifiers

PMID29493780
PMCPMC6494414

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.