Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35217961›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2022

Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mervyn Jun Rui Lim, Khi Yung Fong, Yilong Zheng, Christopher Yuan Kit Chua, Samuel Miny, Jeremy Bingyuan Lin, Vincent Diong Weng Nga, Hian Tat Ong, Rahul Rathakrishnan, Tseng Tsai Yeo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mervyn Jun Rui LimDivision of Neurosurgery, University Surgical Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. mervynlim@u.nus.edu.
Khi Yung FongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yilong ZhengYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Christopher Yuan Kit ChuaDivision of Neurology, University Medical Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Samuel MinySystematic Review Unit, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jeremy Bingyuan LinDivision of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Khoo Teck Puat - National University Children's Medical Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Vincent Diong Weng NgaDivision of Neurosurgery, University Surgical Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Hian Tat OngDivision of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Khoo Teck Puat - National University Children's Medical Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Rahul RathakrishnanDivision of Neurology, University Medical Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Tseng Tsai YeoDivision of Neurosurgery, University Surgical Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
National University Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SGKhoo Teck Puat Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To analyze the efficacy and safety of high-frequency VNS versus control (low-frequency VNS or no VNS) in patients with DRE using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An electronic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL); 12 RCTs reporting seizure frequency or treatment response in studies containing a high-frequency VNS treatment arm (conventional VNS or transcutaneous VNS [tVNS]) compared to control (low-frequency VNS or no VNS) were included. Seizure frequency, treatment response (number of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency), quality of life (QOL), and adverse effects were analyzed. Seizure frequency was reported in 9 studies (718 patients). Meta-analysis with random-effects models favored high-frequency VNS over control (standardized mean difference = 0.82, 95%-CI = 0.39-1.24, p < .001). This remained significant for subgroup analyses of low-frequency VNS as the control, VNS modality, and after removing studies with moderate-to-high risk of bias. Treatment response was reported in 8 studies (758 patients). Random-effects models favored high-frequency VNS over control (risk ratio = 1.57, 95%-CI = 1.19-2.07, p < .001). QOL outcomes were reported descriptively in 4 studies (363 patients), and adverse events were reported in 11 studies (875 patients). Major side effects and death were not observed to be more common in high-frequency VNS compared to control. High-frequency VNS results in reduced seizure frequency and improved treatment response compared to control (low-frequency VNS or no VNS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Greater consideration for VNS in patients with DRE may be warranted to decrease seizure frequency in the management of these patients.

Indexed as

Drug Resistant EpilepsyVagus Nerve StimulationClinical ProtocolsHumansQuality of LifeSeizuresTreatment OutcomeEpilepsyMeta-analysisSystematic reviewVagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35217961
OpenAlexW4214654422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.