SynthesisNeurology2023
Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Surgical and Neurostimulation Treatments for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Adults.
Synthesis in Neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcranial direct current stimulation in the management of epilepsy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Surgical and Neurostimulation Treatments for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Adults.Neurology · 2023Pooled it
- To Delay or Not to Delay: The Role Cenobamate Plays in the Presurgical Evaluation.Epilepsy currents · 2026Article
- Review
- Optimizing the diagnostic timing for drug-resistant epilepsy: balancing timeliness and stability with an antiseizure medication waiting period.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026Article
- Twenty years of frontal lobe surgery: Clinical outcomes and lessons from the frontier.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Predicting response to neuromodulation therapies in drug-resistant epilepsy using machine learning models: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of vagus nerve stimulation in drug-resistant epilepsy.Acta epileptologica · 2025Review
- Stereoelectroencephalography for Epilepsy Presurgical Assessment: A Nationwide Survey of Evolution of Practice in Australia.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2025Article
- Novel planning pipeline utilizing the Surgical Theater system for pediatric epilepsy surgery.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers to neurologist referral of patients for epilepsy surgery evaluation.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Advancements in Surgical Therapies for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Paradigm Shift towards Precision Care.Neurology and therapy · 2025Review
- Neuromodulation Techniques for Headache Management.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSurgical and neurostimulator treatments are effective for reducing seizure burden in selected individuals living with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). We aimed to determine the presence and key model determinants for cost-effectiveness of these interventions, compared with medical management alone, to assist with decisions about resource allocation.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted on June 1, 2022, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis database. Included studies were economic evaluations in adult DRE cohorts, comparing surgical and neurostimulator treatments (vagus nerve stimulation [VNS], responsive neurostimulation [RNS], and deep brain stimulation [DBS]) vs medical management alone and reporting cost-benefit analysis, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness. Exclusion criteria were studies with pediatric cohorts and those published in a language other than English. Three independent reviewers screened, extracted, and assessed data against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and a fourth reviewer adjudicated discrepancies.
resultsTen studies met inclusion criteria. Seven studies evaluated epilepsy surgery, and 3 evaluated neurostimulation treatments. All relevant studies established that epilepsy surgery is a cost-effective intervention compared with medical management alone, for quality-adjusted life-years and seizure freedom at 2 and 5 years. All relevant studies found neurostimulator treatments to be potentially cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with lower ICER indicating greater cost-effectiveness, was reported for 9 studies and varied between GBP £3,013 and US $61,333. Cost adaptation revealed ICERs from US $170 to US $121,726. Key model determinants included, but were not limited to, improved surgical outcomes and quality of life, reduced surgical and presurgical evaluation costs, higher rates of surgical eligibility after referral and evaluation, epilepsy subtype, less expensive neurostimulator devices with improved longevity, and cost analysis strategy used in the analysis. DISCUSSION: There is consistent evidence that epilepsy surgery is a cost-effective treatment of eligible candidates with DRE. Limited evidence suggests that VNS, RNS, and DBS may be cost-effective therapies for DRE, although more health economic evaluations alongside prospective clinical trials are needed to validate these findings. STUDY REGISTRATION INFORMATION: PROSPERO CRD42021278436.
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.