Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30377843›Full record

SynthesisClinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society2019

Ictal autonomic changes as a tool for seizure detection: a systematic review.

Anouk van Westrhenen, Thomas De Cooman, Richard H C Lazeron, Sabine Van Huffel, Roland D Thijs

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Synuclein in red blood cells: a potential biomarker for multiple system atrophy, and other updates on recent autonomic research.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2020
    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

5 authors.

Anouk van WestrhenenStichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Heemstede, P.O. Box 540, 2130 AM, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1987-5793
Thomas De CoomanDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9091-3529
Richard H C LazeronAcademic Center of Epileptology Kempenhaeghe, Heeze, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5570-8872
Sabine Van HuffelDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5939-0996
Roland D ThijsStichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Heemstede, P.O. Box 540, 2130 AM, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands. rthijs@sein.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1435-8970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdequate epileptic seizure detection may have the potential to minimize seizure-related complications and improve treatment evaluation. Autonomic changes often precede ictal electroencephalographic discharges and therefore provide a promising tool for timely seizure detection. We reviewed the literature for seizure detection algorithms using autonomic nervous system parameters.

methodsThe PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for original human studies that validate an algorithm for automatic seizure detection based on autonomic function alterations. Studies on neonates only and pilot studies without performance data were excluded. Algorithm performance was compared for studies with a similar design (retrospective vs. prospective) reporting both sensitivity and false alarm rate (FAR). Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2 and recently reported quality standards on reporting seizure detection algorithms.

resultsTwenty-one out of 638 studies were included in the analysis. Fifteen studies presented a single-modality algorithm based on heart rate variability (n = 10), heart rate (n = 4), or QRS morphology (n = 1), while six studies assessed multimodal algorithms using various combinations of HR, corrected QT interval, oxygen saturation, electrodermal activity, and accelerometry. Most studies had small sample sizes and a short follow-up period. Only two studies performed a prospective validation. A tendency for a lower FAR was found for retrospectively validated algorithms using multimodal autonomic parameters compared to those using single modalities (mean sensitivity per participant 71-100% vs. 64-96%, and mean FAR per participant 0.0-2.4/h vs. 0.7-5.4/h).

conclusionsThe overall quality of studies on seizure detection using autonomic parameters is low. Unimodal autonomic algorithms cannot reach acceptable performance as false alarm rates are still too high. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate multimodal automatic seizure detection.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAutonomic Nervous SystemHumansSeizuresAlgorithm(s)Automatic seizure detectionAutonomic function(s)Autonomic parameter(s)EpilepsySUDEP

Identifiers

PMID30377843
PMCPMC6459795

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.