Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29755403›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2018

Has the Time Come to Stratify and Score SUDEP Risk to Inform People With Epilepsy of Their Changes in Safety?

Rohit Shankar, Craig Newman, Alistair Gales, Brendan N McLean, Jane Hanna, Samantha Ashby, Matthew C Walker, Josemir W Sander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Let's talk SUDEP.Noro psikiyatri arsivi · 2019
    Review
  8. Reducing the Risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP).Current treatment options in neurology · 2018
    Review
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

8 authors.

Rohit ShankarCornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Truro, United Kingdom.
Craig NewmanPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Alistair GalesWairau Hospital, Blenheim, New Zealand.
Brendan N McLeanRoyal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, United Kingdom.
Jane HannaSUDEP Action, Wantage, United Kingdom.
Samantha AshbySUDEP Action, Wantage, United Kingdom.
Matthew C WalkerNIHR University College London, Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.
Josemir W SanderNIHR University College London, Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent publication of the American Academy of Neurology SUDEP guidance highlighted the importance to American clinicians of making people with epilepsy aware of SUDEP risk. It is the first guideline to do this in the United States. It follows precedent set out in the UK by National Institute of Clinical Excellence in 2004. While a significant achievement, the lack of clarity of how to deliver this guidance in an enduring and person-centered manner, raises concerns on how its long-term effectiveness in risk mitigation. Shared decision-making with an emphasis on delivering person-centered communication to foster self-management strategies is increasingly recognized as the ideal model of patient-clinician communication in chronic diseases such as epilepsy. The tension between delivering evidence-based risk information, yet, tailoring it to the individual is complex. It needs to incorporate the potential for change not only in seizure factors but also other health and social factors. Safety advice needs to be dynamic and situation sensitive as opposed to a "one off" discussion. As a significant minority of people with epilepsy have drug-resistant seizures, the importance of keeping the advice contextual at different intervals of the person's life cannot be overstated as many of them are managed in primary care. We present some exploratory work, which identifies the need to improve communication at a primary care level and to review risks regularly. Regular reviews using a structured risk factor checklist as a screening tool could identify, sooner, people who's health issues are worsening and justify referrals to specialists.

Indexed as

classifycommunicationrisk assessmentrisk factorsSUDEP

Identifiers

PMID29755403
PMCPMC5934492

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.