ReviewJournal of central nervous system disease2023
Clinical Benefit of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Epilepsy: Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Non-Randomized Studies.
Review in Journal of central nervous system disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on anxiety, depression, and quality of life in patients with epilepsy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Antiepileptic and antiepileptogenic effects ofIBRO neuroscience reports · 2026Article
- Feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after paediatric vagus nerve stimulator implantation for medically intractable epilepsy: a retrospective safety analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Longitudinal association of subjective sleep quality and health-related quality of life improvements with Vagus nerve stimulation in drug-resistant epilepsy: a 24-month retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Long-Term Efficacy and Quality-of-Life Changes After Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Adult Patients With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Using neural biomarkers to personalize dosing of vagus nerve stimulation.Bioelectronic medicine · 2024Article
- State- and frequency-dependence in autonomic rebalance mediated by intradermal auricular electroacupuncture stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Living-Neuron-Based Autogenerator.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Therapeutic Strategies to Ameliorate Neuronal Damage in Epilepsy by Regulating Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, and Neuroinflammation.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Is MORE better? Accumulating Evidence for ANT DBS in Epilepsy.Epilepsy currentsArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the efficacy of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) for patients suffering from medically intractable epilepsy. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs - 3 adult RCTs and 1 pediatric RCT) were identified in our comprehensive literature search. Across the 4 studies, high frequency VNS stimulation (frequency >20 Hz) consistently achieved a greater seizure frequency reduction (23.4-33.1%) relative to low frequency VNS stimulation (1 Hz, .6-15.2%). We identified 2 RCTs examining whether the parameters of stimulation influenced seizure control. These studies reported that VNS achieved seizure control comparable to those reported by the first 4 RCTs (22-43% seizure frequency reduction), irrespective of the parameters utilized for VNS stimulation. In terms of VNS associated morbidity, these morbidities were consistently higher in adults who underwent high frequency VNS stimulation (eg dysphonia 37-66%, dyspnea 6-25.3%). However, no such differences were observed in the pediatric population. Moreover, <2% of patients withdrew from the RCTs/prospective studies due to intolerable symptoms. To provide an assessment of how the risks and benefits of VNS impact the patient experience, 1 study assessed the well-being of enrolled patients (as a secondary end point) and found VNS was associated with an overall improvement in well-being. Consistent with this observation, we identified a prospective, non-randomized study that demonstrated improved quality of life for epilepsy patients managed with VNS and best medical practice relative to best medical practice alone. In aggregate, these RCT studies support the efficacy and benefit of VNS as a neuro-modulatory platform in the management of a subset of medically refractory epilepsy patients.
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.