Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29588932›Full record

ReviewEpilepsia open2016

The right and the wrong with epilepsy and her science.

Simon Shorvon, Dieter Schmidt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Epilepsy Surgery in 2019 : A Time to Change.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2019
    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.

Simon ShorvonUCL Institute of Neurology National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery London United Kingdom.
Dieter SchmidtEpilepsy Research Group Berlin Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anatomy of errorsBureaucracies of epilepsyClinical practiceDark side of epilepsyEnd of epilepsy?Epilepsy researchScientific progress

Identifiers

PMID29588932
PMCPMC5719833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.