Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35699675›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2022

Clinician preferences for neurotechnologies in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: A discrete choice experiment.

Glory O Apantaku, Patrick J McDonald, Magda Aguiar, Laura Y Cabrera, Winston Chiong, Mary B Connolly, Viorica Hrincu, George M Ibrahim, K Julia Kaal, Ashley Lawson and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Understanding and overcoming delays to pediatric epilepsy surgery: a scoping review.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

15 authors.

Glory O ApantakuFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6083-4563
Patrick J McDonaldNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Magda AguiarFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Laura Y CabreraDepartment of Science and Mechanics, Center for Neural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Winston ChiongDepartment of Neurology, Memory and Aging Center, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Mary B ConnollyDivision of Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Viorica HrincuNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
George M IbrahimDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9068-8184
K Julia KaalFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ashley LawsonNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Robert NaftelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Eric RacinePragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Abdollah SafariFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Mark HarrisonFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2115-2447
Judy IllesNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

Informing Choice for Neurotechnological Innovation in Pediatric Epilepsy SurgeryRF1MH117805 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI ILLES, JUDY, MCDONALD, PATRICK · 2018 to 2018
$534k
NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH117805
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNovel and minimally invasive neurotechnologies offer the potential to reduce the burden of epilepsy while avoiding the risks of conventional resective surgery. Few neurotechnologies have been tested in randomized controlled trials with pediatric populations, leaving clinicians to face decisions about whether to recommend these treatments with insufficient evidence about the relevant risks and benefits. This study specifically explores the preferences of clinicians for treating pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) with novel neurotechnologies.

methodsA discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the preferences of clinicians with experience in treating children with DRE using novel neurotechnological interventions. The preferences for six key attributes used when making treatment decisions (chances of clinically significant improvement in seizures, major and minor risks from intervention, availability of evidence, financial burden for the family, and access to the intervention) were estimated using a conditional logit model. The estimates from this model were then used to predict the adoption of existing novel neurotechnological interventions.

resultsSixty-eight clinicians completed the survey: 33 neurosurgeons, 28 neurologists, and 7 other clinicians. Most clinicians were working in the United States (74%), and the remainder (26%) in Canada. All attributes, apart from the nearest location with access to the intervention, influenced preferences significantly. The chance of clinically significant improvement in seizures was the most positive influence on clinician preferences, but low-quality evidence and a higher risk of major complications could offset these preferences. Of the existing neurotechnological interventions, vagus nerve stimulation was predicted to have the highest likelihood of adoption; deep brain stimulation had the lowest likelihood of adoption. SIGNIFICANCE: The preferences of clinicians are drive primarily by the likelihood of achieving seizure freedom for their patients, but preferences for an intervention are largely eradicated if only low quality of evidence supporting the intervention is available. Until better evidence supporting the use of potentially effective, novel neurotechnologies becomes available, clinicians are likely to prefer more established treatments.

Indexed as

Drug Resistant EpilepsyEpilepsyVagus Nerve StimulationChildChoice BehaviorDecision MakingHumansSeizuresclinician preferencesdiscrete choice experimentneurotechnologypediatric epilepsy

Identifiers

PMID35699675
PMCPMC9796345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.