ArticleEpilepsia open2021
The importance of acknowledging diagnostic uncertainty in patients with new-onset paroxysmal spells.
Article in Epilepsia open, 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.
- The importance of acknowledging diagnostic uncertainty in patients with new-onset paroxysmal spells.Epilepsia open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aims of this study were to evaluate the frequency of paroxysmal spells of indeterminate nature (PSIN) in a large cohort of children and adults with suspected new-onset seizures, to evaluate the reasons for including patients in this category, and to calculate the rate of erroneous diagnoses if the epileptologists were compelled to label those events as epileptic seizures or nonepileptic paroxysmal spells.
methodsPatients identified for this study participated in a prospective study evaluating patients with suspected new-onset unprovoked seizures. The workup included a detailed history and a thorough description of the spells, a 3-hour video EEG recording, and an epilepsy protocol brain MRI. Based exclusively on a detailed description of the ictal events, two epileptologists were asked to independently classify each patient into those with a definite diagnosis of unprovoked seizures or a definite diagnosis of a nonepileptic paroxysmal spells (group 1) and those with PSIN (group 2).
resultsA total of 1880 consecutive patients were enrolled with 255 (13.6%) included in the PSIN group. Patients with PSIN were significantly younger than those with a definite diagnosis, and PSIN were significantly more frequent in children with developmental delay. The most common reason for including patients in the PSIN group was the inability to categorically discriminate between a seizure and a nonepileptic mimicker. When the raters were compelled to classify the spells in the PSIN group, the frequencies of erroneous diagnoses ranged between 32% and 38%. The final diagnoses on those patients were made based on the results of the EEG, MRI, and follow-up visits. SIGNIFICANCE: Our data indicate that a diagnostic category of PSIN should be recognized and ought to be used in clinical practice. Acknowledging this uncertainty will result in lower frequencies of erroneous diagnoses, possible stigma, and potential exposure to unnecessary antiseizure medications.
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.