ReviewEpilepsia open2016
The right and the wrong with epilepsy and her science.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epilepsy Surgery in 2019 : A Time to Change.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a commentary and an opinion paper attempting a critical reassessment of the methods and practices of epilepsy research as we see it. The enormous progress in the field of epilepsy in recent years is a cause of celebration. Advances have been made on most fronts, and the position of patients with epilepsy in society has greatly improved. However, there have also been culs-de-sac and dead ends of modern science and clinical practice which are also intriguing. It may be true that we can learn more from our mistakes than from our successes. In this opinion paper, we have listed some of the successes and some of the failures of past epilepsy practice, and also areas of current practice and theory which we feel are likely to prove mistaken. The underlying reasons for misdirected practices and theories include, in our view, the influence of fashion, bad science, and the bureaucracies of practice and academic medicine. As a result, some findings are far from objective. Recognition is the first step to remediation, and hopefully future research will minimize some of the pitfalls mentioned in this article and bring the "End of Epilepsy," as defined and predicted by Oswei Temkin, closer than it is today.
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.