ReviewNeurotrauma reports2024
The Cumulative Incidence of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis Protocol.
Review in Neurotrauma reports, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A precise understanding of the latency to post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE) following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is necessary for optimal patient care. This precision is currently lacking despite a surprising number of available data sources that could address this pressing need. Following guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Briggs Institute, we conduct a systematic review to address the research questions: What is the cumulative incidence of PTE following mild TBI (mTBI; concussion), and what is the distribution of the latency to onset? We designed a comprehensive search of medical databases and gray literature sources. Citations will be screened on both abstract and full-text levels, independently and in duplicate. Studies will be evaluated for risk of bias independently and in duplicate using published instruments specific to incidence/prevalence studies. Data will be abstracted independently and in duplicate using piloted extraction forms. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. Evidence synthesis will involve pairwise and individual participant data meta-analysis with heterogeneity explored via a set of predetermined subgroups. The robustness of the findings will be subjected to sensitivity analyses based on the risk of bias, outlier studies, and mTBI definitional criteria. The overall certainty in the estimates will be reported using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). This protocol presents an innovative and impactful approach to build on the growing body of knowledge surrounding post-mTBI PTE. Through a precise understanding of the latency period, this study can contribute to early detection, tailored interventions, and improved outcomes, leading to a substantial impact on patient care and quality of life.
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.