ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Prevalence of cerebral visual impairment in developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies: a systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevelopmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEEs) are defined by drug-resistant seizures and neurodevelopmental disorders. Over 50% of patients have a genetic cause. Studies have shown that patients with DEEs, regardless of genetic diagnosis, experience a central visual function disorder known as Cerebral (cortical) Visual Impairment (CVI). The prevalence of CVI in DEE patients is currently unknown. A quantitative synthesis of existing data on the prevalence rates of this condition would aid in understanding the magnitude of the problem, outlining future research, and suggesting the need for therapeutic strategies for early identification and prevention of the disorder.
methodsThe protocol followed the PRISMA-P statement for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. The review will adhere to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Systematic Reviews of Prevalence and Incidence) and use the CoCoPop framework to establish eligibility criteria. We will conduct a comprehensive search of several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, PsychINFO, Wiley, Highwire Press, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. Our primary focus will be determining the prevalence of cerebral visual impairments (Condition) in patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (Population). To ensure clarity, we will provide a narrative summary of the risk of bias in the studies we include. The Cochrane Q statistic will be used to assess heterogeneity between studies. If the quantitative synthesis includes more than 10 studies, potential sources of heterogeneity will be investigated through subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Meta(bias)es analysis will also be performed. The quality of evidence for all outcomes will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION: This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify, collect, evaluate, and integrate epidemiological knowledge related to the prevalence of CVI in patients with DEEs. To the best of our knowledge, no other systematic review and meta-analysis has addressed this specific issue. The results will provide useful information for understanding the extent of the problem, outlining future research, and suggesting the need for early identification strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: This Systematic Review Protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023448910).
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.