ArticleRevista de neurologia2024
[Withdrawal and reintroduction of pharmacological treatment of epilepsy in paediatric patients. Our experience].
Article in Revista de neurologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Our Experience with Pediatric Patients Withdrawn from Pharmacological Treatment for Epilepsy who Remain Untreated].Revista de neurologia · 2025Article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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are many variables to be considered in the withdrawal of treatment for epileptic seizures, which requires a risk-benefit assessment. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective study of patients in a neuropaediatric practice who required the reintroduction of treatment for epilepsy after its initial withdrawal, and who continue to receive anti-seizure drugs.
resultsTwenty-three of 57 children whose treatment was withdrawn are currently being administered the treatment as a monotherapy. Attempts at withdrawal were made with 17 patients, with a mean seizure-free period of 26 months; range: 8-47 months (excluding one patient who never stopped presenting seizures). Mean age at the time of the last known data: 16 years; range: 7-28 years. Average time until the first seizure after withdrawal: 12 months; range: 1-82 months. Seizures persist despite the current treatment administered in eight cases. Two or three attempts to withdraw treatment were made in six patients, with a mean seizure-free period of 28.6 months; range: 22-48 months. Mean age at the time of the last known data: 18.68 years; range: 13-37 years. Average time until the first seizure after withdrawal: 8.2 months; range: 1-30 months. They presented seizures after treatment four was reintroduced. 52% of the patients presented seizures while receiving the drug, which was discontinued. The treatment was withdrawn in cases meeting criteria for persistent seizures: three refractory epilepsies, five symptomatic focal epilepsies, four cases with intellectual disability, five adolescent-onset epilepsies, and failures in previous withdrawal in 23 cases and 30 attempts.
conclusionThe decision to withdraw treatment must be personalised, and consider the risk of relapse, taking into account efficacy and tolerability, and behaviour and neurodevelopment in particular.
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.