ArticleEpilepsia2024
How accurate do self-reported seizures need to be for effective medication management in epilepsy?
Article in Epilepsia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring Antiseizure Medication Change Using Ultra Long-Term Electroencephalogram: A Multicenter Study.Annals of neurology · 2026Article
- The future of epilepsy care in the United Kingdom: A roadmap for technology-enabled transformation.Epilepsia open · 2026Review
- Does Missing Medication Acutely Change Seizure Risk? A Prospective Study.Annals of neurology · 2026Article
- Article
- Seizure burden and treatment efficacy evaluation in anti-LGI1 autoimmune encephalitis patients using wearable device: a pilot feasibility study.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Early detection of antiseizure medication inefficacy using an implantable continuous EEG system and a personalized model: a case study.Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies suggest that self-reported seizure diaries suffer from 50% under-reporting on average. It is unknown to what extent this impacts medication management. This study used simulation to predict the seizure outcomes of a large heterogeneous clinic population treated with a standardized algorithm based on self-reported seizures. Using CHOCOLATES, a state-of-the-art realistic seizure diary simulator, 100 000 patients were simulated over 10 years. A standard algorithm for medication management was employed at 3 month intervals for all patients. The impact on true seizure rates, expected seizure rates, and time-to-steady-dose were computed for self-reporting sensitivities 0%-100%. Time-to-steady-dose and medication use mostly did not depend on sensitivity. True seizure rate decreased minimally with increasing self-reporting in a non-linear fashion, with the largest decreases at low sensitivity rates (0%-10%). This study suggests that an extremely wide range of sensitivity will have similar seizure outcomes when patients are clinically treated using an algorithm similar to the one presented. Conversely, patients with sensitivity ≤10% would be expected to benefit (via lower seizure rates) from objective devices that provide even small improvements in seizure sensitivity.
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.