ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
MEG in MRI-Negative Patients with Focal Epilepsy.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of machine learning approaches to predict seizure-onset zones in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Augments Semiology in Stereotactic Electroencephalography (SEEG) Evaluations.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Frontier and hot topics in Magnetoencephalography(MEG) in neurological diseases.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Multimodal Imaging in Epilepsy Surgery for Personalized Neurosurgical Planning.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical Utility of Magnetoencephalography in Epilepsy Evaluation: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of epilepsy research · 2025Review
- Beamforming of ictal MEG aiding subtle focal cortical dysplasia localization.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the evidence on the clinical value of magnetic source imaging (MSI) in patients with refractory focal epilepsy without evidence for an epileptogenic lesion on magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI-negative" or "non-lesional MRI").
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search on PUBMED, which was extended by researchrabbit.ai using predefined criteria to identify studies that applied MSI in MRI-negative patients with epilepsy. We extracted data on patient characteristics, MSI methods, localization results, surgical outcomes, and correlation with other modalities.
resultsWe included 23 studies with a total of 512 non-lesional epilepsy patients who underwent MSI. Most studies used equivalent current dipole (ECD) models to estimate the sources of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs). MEG detected IEDs in 32-100% of patients. MSI results were concordant with other modalities, such as EEG, PET, and SPECT, in 3892% of cases. If MSI concordant surgery was performed, 52-89% of patients achieved seizure freedom. MSI contributed to the decision-making process in 28-75% of cases and altered the surgical plan in 5-33% of cases.
conclusionsMSI is a valuable diagnostic tool for MRI-negative patients with epilepsy, as it can detect and localize IEDs with high accuracy and sensitivity, and provides useful information for surgical planning and predicts outcomes. MSI can also complement and refine the results of other modalities, such as EEG and PET, and optimize the use of invasive recordings. MSI should be considered as part of the presurgical evaluation, especially in patients with non-lesional refractory epilepsy.
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.