Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36654850›Full record

ReviewJournal of central nervous system disease2023

Clinical Benefit of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Epilepsy: Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Non-Randomized Studies.

Samuel W Cramer, Robert A McGovern, Clark C Chen, Michael C Park

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antiepileptic and antiepileptogenic effects ofIBRO neuroscience reports · 2026
    Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Living-Neuron-Based Autogenerator.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samuel W CramerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7103-4182
Robert A McGovernDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Clark C ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Michael C ParkDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

epilepsy surgerymedically intractable epilepsyneuromodulation for epilepsyvagus nerve stimulationVNS for epilepsy

Identifiers

PMID36654850
PMCPMC9841854
OpenAlexW4315643961

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.