Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35904040›Full record

ArticleEpileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape2022

Evaluating consciousness and awareness during focal seizures: responsiveness testing versus recall testing

Violeta Contreras Ramirez, Bogdan Patedakis Litvinov, Nisali Anuradha Gunawardane, Charlie W Zhao, Courtney Yotter, Imran H Quraishi, Hal Blumenfeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A practical guide to the updated seizure classification 2025.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Violeta Contreras RamirezDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Bogdan Patedakis LitvinovDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Nisali Anuradha GunawardaneDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Charlie W ZhaoDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Courtney YotterDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Imran H QuraishiDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Hal BlumenfeldDepartment of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Funding

Short-Term Reserch Training: Students in Health SchoolsT35HL007649 · NHLBI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Sarwat I Chaudhry, Erica L Herzog · 1987 to 2026
$5.7M
Thalamic stimulation to prevent impaired consciousness in epilepsyUH3NS112826 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI BLUMENFELD, HAL · 2021 to 2023
$5.4M
Thalamic stimulation to prevent impaired consciousness in epilepsyUG3NS112826 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI BLUMENFELD, HAL · 2019 to 2020
$1.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS T35 HL007649NINDS NIH HHS UG3 NS112826NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS112826
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The current International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) guidelines classify focal seizures based on awareness, defined as successful postictal recall of ictal experiences, and exclude the use of responsiveness during seizures for classification. One reason for this exclusion is that responsiveness was thought to not be commonly tested during seizures. Our goal was to determine whether, in at least some settings, responsiveness testing during seizures is relatively common. Methods: We assessed how often responsiveness and recall were each evaluated in patients with focal epilepsy undergoing surface and intracranial EEG-video monitoring. We performed this evaluation by retrospectively reviewing video recordings from 121 seizures from 48 patients during their stay in the epilepsy monitoring unit between September 2012 and November 2019. Results: We found that responsiveness during seizures was tested more frequently than recall of ictal events after seizures. Of 121 seizures in 48 patients, responsiveness was tested in 101 seizures, whereas recall was tested in only 38. Significance: Evaluating if consciousness is impaired during seizures is of critical importance for guiding recommendations for people with epilepsy, such as whether it is safe for them to drive or operate machinery. The ILAE classification guidelines are intended to be broadly useful, but our findings demonstrate that at least in one important clinical setting, responsiveness was used more commonly than recall to evaluate patients during focal seizures. Although our preliminary findings should be replicated in a larger sample and in other patient groups, they suggest that responsiveness testing during focal seizures might be relatively common in at least some clinical practice settings. With further study, this may lead to a re-evaluation of criteria for classifying focal seizures to include both responsiveness and recall of experiences during seizures, as both may provide important information to guide clinical care.

Indexed as

Epilepsies, PartialEpilepsyConsciousnessElectroencephalographyHumansRetrospective StudiesSeizuresclassificationconsciousnessepilepsymemoryseizurevideo/EEG

Identifiers

PMID35904040
PMCPMC10042123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.