ArticleNeurology2020
Temporal trends and autopsy findings of SUDEP based on medico-legal investigations in the United States.
Article in Neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric and visualized analysis of current advances and future directions in epilepsy: from molecular basis to therapy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Antiseizure medications for idiopathic generalized epilepsies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Cardiac structural and functional abnormalities in epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Epilepsia open · 2023Pooled it
- Current perspectives in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): epidemiology, research approaches and pathways to prevention.Neurological research and practice · 2026Review
- Article
- Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: A critical view of the literature.Epilepsia open · 2023Review
- Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: A bibliometric overview.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- The analysis of SUDEP forensic autopsies leading to preventable events.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Trend of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy Incidence Rate in Rural West China.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Brugada Syndrome: Warning of a Systemic Condition?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine time trends and distinguishing autopsy findings of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in the United States.
methodsWe identified decedents where epilepsy/seizure was listed as cause/contributor to death or comorbid condition on the death certificate among all decedents who underwent medico-legal investigation at 3 medical examiner (ME) offices across the country: New York City (2009-2016), San Diego County (2008-2016), and Maryland (2000-2016). After reviewing all available reports, deaths classified as definite/probable/near SUDEP or SUDEP plus were included for analysis. Mann-Kendall trend test was used to analyze temporal trends in SUDEP rate for 2009-2016. Definite SUDEPs were compared to sex- and age ±2 years-matched non-SUDEP deaths with a history of epilepsy regarding autopsy findings, circumstances, and comorbidities.
resultsA total of 1,086 SUDEP cases were identified. There was a decreasing trend in ME-investigated SUDEP incidence between 2009 and 2016 (
conclusionsThere was a decreasing monotonic trend in ME-investigated SUDEP incidence over 8 years, with a 28% reduction in incidence from 2009-2012 to 2013-2016. Unlike SIDS and sudden cardiac death, we found no correlation between SUDEP and the season of year or day of week. No autopsy findings distinguished SUDEP from non-SUDEP deaths.
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.