ArticleScientific reports2023
Calgary score and modified calgary score in the differential diagnosis between syncope and genetic generalized epilepsy in children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to explore the use of Calgary scoring (CS) and Modified Calgary scoring (MCS) in the differentiation of genetic generalized epilepsy and syncope in children. The study involved 117 patients aged < 18 years who presented to our hospital's pediatric neurology outpatient clinic with TLOC between June 2020 and June 2022. In addition to CS and MCS scoring, all patients were subjected to statistical analysis based on their age, sex, number of episodes and distribution during the day, duration of syncope, and family history. Seventy-one patients with syncope and 46 with epilepsy were included in the study. At a CS value > - 1, sensitivity was 86.9% and specificity 63.4%, while at an MCS value > - 1, sensitivity was 76.1% and specificity 71.8%. CS had less specificity and sensitivity in predicting epilepsy when focal epilepsies were excluded. Abnormal behavior noted by bystanders, including witnessed unresponsive, unusual posturing, or limb jerking? (Q5) emerged as the most important question for the detection of epilepsy. Compared with other syncope findings, loss of consciousness during prolonged sitting or standing (Q9) emerged as the most important for the detection of syncope.
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.