ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022
Do the neurologists recognize autoimmune epilepsy well enough? What is the effect of the pandemic on this matter?
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global disparities in the recognition, diagnosis, and management of seizures or epilepsy of autoimmune etiology.Epilepsia open · 2026Article
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
introductionThe concept of "autoimmune epilepsy" (AE) has been emphasized more frequently through the recent increase in recognition of various autoantibodies specific to neuronal proteins.
aimsTo evaluate the attitudes of neurologists in regard to AE, to review the differential diagnosis, treatment options, and to reveal the effect of COVID-19 on this matter.
methodsA detailed questionnaire prepared for AE was sent to neurologists via social media and WhatsApp after the approval of the Ethics Committee. The responses of 245 respondents working in different settings were analyzed, and the group with 15 years or less experience in neurology was statistically compared to the group with more than 15 years of experience.
resultsAwareness and knowledge levels on AE seemed high in all groups, while 11% had never thought about AE during the differential diagnosis in real life. Before starting treatment, 20% thought that the autoantibody result should definitely support it, and 77.6% reported that they did not recognize AE well. Participants stated that satisfactory guidelines for diagnosis and treatment (88.2%) and widespread laboratory support (83.7%) were lacking. Neurologists with less experience and those working outside of training hospitals get more often consultation from an experienced clinician while diagnosing and conduct more detailed investigations at the diagnosis stage (p = 0.0025, p = 0.0001).
conclusionThis first survey study conducted in a large group of neurologists on the attitudes for the concept of AE suggested that postgraduate education, and diagnostic and treatment guidelines should be organized and antibody screening tests need to be better disseminated.
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.