ArticleEpilepsia open2019
A screening questionnaire for generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Hospital-based validation vs field-validation method.
Article in Epilepsia open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of isolated RBD in the city of Catania, Italy: a population-based study.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2021Article
- A screening questionnaire for generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Hospital-based validation vs field-validation method.Epilepsia open · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The majority of the screening questionnaires for epilepsy have been validated in hospital settings. We previously developed and used for field validation a screening tool to detect generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) in the rural communities of the Chaco region of Bolivia. The objective of the present study was to perform a hospital-based validation of the same questionnaire and to compare the levels of accuracy obtained when validated in the field or in a hospital-based context. We carried out a hospital-based validation in the Hospital Hernandez Vera of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, where we enrolled patients affected by epilepsy with GTCS and controls. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated. One hundred twenty questionnaires were administered to 59 patients (27 men [45.8%]; mean age ± SD = 32.4 ± 14.2 years) and 61 controls (27 men [44.3%]; mean age ± SD = 32.6 ± 14.3 years). We obtained levels of accuracy of 100%. Sensitivity and PPV were significantly higher than the estimates obtained in the field-validation study (sensitivity 100% vs 76.3%; PPV 100% vs 69.0%). Our screening questionnaire showed a significantly lower level of sensitivity when validated in the field, confirming that hospital-based validation can lead to an overestimation of sensitivity.
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.