ReviewEpilepsia open2016
Not all that glitters is gold: A guide to the critical interpretation of drug trials in epilepsy.
Review in Epilepsia open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of Placebo Effect between Asian and Caucasian Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Meta-Analysis.Chinese medical journal · 2018Pooled it
- Long-term safety of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: Open-label extension of a randomized clinical study.Epilepsia · 2021Trial
- Article
- Article
- What matters most to people living with epilepsy? A rapid review of qualitative research relating to health outcomes.Epilepsia · 2025Review
- Blueprint for clinical N-of-1 strategies with off-label precision treatments in monogenic epilepsies.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- Precision therapies for genetic epilepsies in 2025: Promises and pitfalls.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Effectiveness and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for focal seizures in adults with developmental disability treated in clinical practice.Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2022Article
- A retrospective review of changes and challenges in the use of antiseizure medicines in Dravet syndrome in Norway.Epilepsia open · 2020Article
- The Interplay between the Endocannabinoid System, Epilepsy and Cannabinoids.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- From clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs to treatment.Epilepsia open · 2018Article
- Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Epilepsy: Hard Evidence at Last?Journal of epilepsy research · 2017Review
- Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Lacosamide in Norway: Focus on Pharmacokinetic Variability, Efficacy and Tolerability.Neurochemical research · 2017Article
- Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Fairest Third Generation Anti-Seizure Medication of All?Epilepsy currentsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials represent the best source of evidence on which to base treatment decisions. For such evidence to be utilized meaningfully, however, it is essential that results are interpreted correctly. This requires a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the adopted design, the clinical relevance of the outcome measures, and the many factors that could affect such outcomes. As a general rule, uncontrolled studies tend to provide misleading evidence as a result of the impact of confounders such as regression to the mean, patient-related bias, and observer bias. On the other hand, although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are qualitatively superior, aspects of their execution may still decrease their validity. Bias and decreased validity in RCTs may occur by chance alone (for example, treatment groups may not necessarily be balanced for important variables despite randomization) or because of specific features of the trial design. In the case of industry-driven studies, bias often influences the outcome in favor of the sponsor's product. Factors that need to be carefully scrutinized include (1) the purpose for which the trial is conducted; (2) potential bias due to unblinding or lack of blinding; (3) the appropriateness of the control group; (4) the power of the study in detecting clinically relevant differences; (5) the extent to which eligibility criteria could affect outcomes and be representative of routine clinical practice; (6) whether the treatments being compared are used optimally in terms of dosing, duration of treatment, and other variables; (7) the appropriateness of the statistical comparisons; (8) the clinical relevance of the outcome measures and whether all key outcome information is reported (for example, responder rates in completers); and (9) potential bias in the way results are presented and discussed. This article discusses each of these aspects and illustrates the discussion with examples taken from published antiepileptic drug 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.