Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29561756›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2018

Diagnosis and Surgical Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

Chinekwu Anyanwu, Gholam K Motamedi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Obstacles and Trials in Treating Primary Brain Tumors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical and biochemical assessments of circulating High Mobility Group Box Protein1 in children with epilepsy: relation to cognitive function and drug responsiveness.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Chinekwu AnyanwuDepartment of Neurology, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA 24016, USA. nekwusky@gmail.com.
Gholam K MotamediDepartment of Neurology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA. motamedi@georgetown.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4827-5236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite appropriate trials of at least two antiepileptic drugs, about a third of patients with epilepsy remain drug resistant (intractable; refractory). Epilepsy surgery offers a potential cure or significant improvement to those with focal onset drug-resistant seizures. Unfortunately, epilepsy surgery is still underutilized which might be in part because of the complexity of presurgical evaluation. This process includes classifying the seizure type, lateralizing and localizing the seizure onset focus (epileptogenic zone), confirming the safety of the prospective brain surgery in terms of potential neurocognitive deficits (language and memory functions), before devising a surgical plan. Each one of the above steps requires special tests. In this paper, we have reviewed the process of presurgical evaluation in patients with drug-resistant focal onset epilepsy.

Indexed as

EEGepilepsyepilepsy surgerymedically intractable epilepsyMRIseizures

Identifiers

PMID29561756
PMCPMC5924385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.