Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34561959›Full record

ReviewEpilepsia open2021

Recurrence risk after a first remote symptomatic seizure in adults: Epilepsy or not?

Johan Zelano

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epilepsia open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johan ZelanoDepartment of Neurology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9445-4545
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ILAE practical definition of epilepsy has a one seizure possibility to diagnose epilepsy after a first seizure if the recurrence risk is very high. The recurrence risk after a first seizure in brain disorders (first remote seizure) is often high, but varies with etiology, so more specific information is needed for clinical practice. This review describes etiology-specific recurrence risks in adults with a first remote seizure in stroke, traumatic brain injury, infections, dementia, multiple sclerosis, and tumors. Most studies are short, single center, and retrospective. Inclusion criteria, outcome ascertainment, and results vary. Few patient categories are clearly above the epilepsy threshold of recurrence risk, and there are surprisingly little data for important etiologies like brain infections. Beside stroke, severe TBI could have a sufficiently high recurrence risk for early epilepsy diagnosis, but more studies are needed, preferably prospective ones. The literature is uninformative regarding which seizures qualify as remote. The clinical implication of the low level of available evidence is that for other etiologies than stroke, seizure recurrence remains the most appropriate indicator of epilepsy for most patients with a first remote seizure. Nonetheless, there are worrying indications of a diagnostic drift, which puts patients with a preexisting brain disorder at risk of misdiagnosis. Although there are drawbacks to an intermediate term like "possible epilepsy," it could perhaps be useful in cases when the recurrence risk is high, but epilepsy criteria are not definitely met after a first remote seizure.

Indexed as

EpilepsySeizuresAdultHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRiskdiagnosisremote seizureseizure recurrenceunprovoked seizure

Identifiers

PMID34561959
PMCPMC8633470
OpenAlexW3199284793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.