SynthesisClinical drug investigation2021
Preferential Antiseizure Medications in Pediatric Patients with Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Status Epilepticus: Treat Early and Avoid Delays.Paediatric drugs · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe optimal choice for first- and second-line antiseizure medications for pediatric patients with convulsive status epilepticus remains ambiguous. The present study aimed to estimate the comparative effect on the efficacy and safety of different antiseizure medications in pediatric patients with status epilepticus and provide evidence for clinical practice.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for eligible randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria included: (1) pediatric patients; (2) diagnosis of status epilepticus; and (3) randomized controlled trials. Exclusion criteria were: (1) mixed population without a pediatric subgroup analysis; (2) not status epilepticus; (3) received the study drug prior to admission; (4) sample size fewer than 30; and (5) not randomized controlled trials. Primary outcome was seizure cessation. Secondary outcomes were seizure recurrence within 24 h, respiratory depression, and admission to an intensive care unit. The hierarchy of competing antiseizure medications was presented using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
resultsEight first-line antiseizure medication studies involving 1686 participants and eight second-line antiseizure medication studies involving 1711 participants were eligible for analysis. Midazolam, diazepam, lorazepam, and paraldehyde were administered as first-line antiseizure medications. Valproate, phenobarbital, phenytoin, fosphenytoin, and levetiracetam were investigated as second-line antiseizure medications. No significant differences were observed across first- and second-line antiseizure medications. Midazolam ranked the best for primary and secondary outcomes among the first-line antiseizure medications. Phenobarbital ranked the best for seizure cessation and a lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit. Valproate had superiority in preventing recurrence within 24 h. Levetiracetam had the lowest probability of developing respiratory depression.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the hierarchy of competing interventions. Midazolam could be a better option for first-line treatment. Phenobarbital, levetiracetam, and valproate had their respective superiority in the second-line intervention. This study may provide useful information for clinical decision making under different circumstances.
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.