ArticleEpilepsy currents2019
Perceptions in PNES: A Bidirectional Problem.
Article in Epilepsy currents, 2019. 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.
- Psychogenic Pseudosyncope: Clinical Features, Diagnosis and Management.Journal of atrial fibrillationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health Care Practitioners' Perceptions of Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures: A Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies Rawlings GH, Reuber M. Epilepsia. 2018;59(6):1109-1123. doi:10.1111/epi.14189. Epub 2018 May 11. A recent systematic synthesis of qualitative research demonstrated that patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) often experience unsatisfactory encounters with health-care practitioners (HCPs). It is important to understand such interactions from the perspective of those responsible for delivering care. This systematic review aimed to examine the attitudes and perceptions of HCPs toward PNES. A systematic search of 3 databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and CINAHL) was conducted in November 2017. Studies from around the world published after 1997 using qualitative or quantitative methodologies were reviewed. An interpretative stance was taken to analyze the data utilizing a grounded theory approach. The quality of studies included was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Overall, 30 separate studies capturing the views of at least 3900 professionals were included. Five concepts emerged from the analysis: (1) HCPs' responses demonstrated uncertainty about many aspects of PNES, including diagnosis and treatment; (2) HCPs understood PNES in dualistic terms, perceiving the condition as largely associated with psychological factors; (3) patients with PNES were considered challenging and frustrating; (4) HCPs held mixed or contested views about who is responsible for treating patients with PNES; and (5) PNES was viewed as less severe or disabling than epilepsy and associated with a greater degree of volition. Although some HCPs have an excellent understanding of PNES, the views of many give rise to concern. The number of qualitative studies that directly ask HCPs about their perceptions of PNES is limited. Moreover, some professional groups (ie, mental health specialists) are underrepresented in current research. This study reveals a demand for additional training. However, effort is needed also to change the attitudes of some practitioners toward PNES.
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.