ArticleJournal of epilepsy research2021
Survey on Antiepileptic Drug Therapy in Patients with Drug Resistant Epilepsy.
Article in Journal of epilepsy research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Polymorphisms inPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Efficacy of ACTH therapy in treating infantile epileptic spasm syndrome and its effect on Kramer score.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Recent Progress in the Development of New Antiepileptic Drugs with Novel Targets.Annals of neurosciences · 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
18 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeIndividualized anti-epileptic drug (AED) selection in patient with epilepsy is crucial. However, there is no unified opinion in treating patients with drug resistant epilepsy (DRE). This survey aimed to make a consolidate consensus with epileptologists' perspectives of the treatment for Korean DRE patients by survey responses.
methodsThe survey was conducted with Korean epilepsy experts who have experience prescribing AEDs via e-mail. Survey questionnaires consisted of six items regarding prescription patterns and practical questions in treating patients with DRE in Korea. The research period was from February 2021 to March 2021.
resultsThe survey response rate was 83.3% (90/108). Most (77.8%) of the responders are neurologists. The proportion of patients whose seizures were not controlled by the second AED was 26.9%. The proportion of patients who had taken five or more AEDs is 13.9%, and those who are currently taking five or more AEDs are 7.3%, of which 54.5% and 37.9% reported positive effects on additional AED, respectively. The majority (91.1%) of respondents answered that the mechanism of action was the top priority factor when adding AED. Regarding data priority, responders considered that expert opinion should have the top priority, followed by clinical experiences, reimbursement guidelines and clinical evidence. Responders gave 64.9 points (range from 0 to 100) about overall satisfaction on reimbursement system of Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for AED.
conclusionsThis study on AED therapy for DRE patients is the first nationwide trial in Korean epilepsy experts. In five drug failure, the top priorities on AED selection are mechanism of action and expert opinion. These findings might help to achieve consensus and recognize the insight on optimal therapy of AED in DRE.
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.