SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Focused ultrasound for treatment of epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From competition to complementarity: narrative review of laser interstitial thermal therapy, focused ultrasound, and radiofrequency ablation in minimally invasive neurosurgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in the Management of Seizures in Children.Paediatric drugs · 2026Review
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
Various preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the neuromodulatory and ablative effects of focused ultrasound (FUS). However, the safety and efficacy of FUS in clinical settings for treating epilepsy have not been well established. This study aims to provide a systematic review of all preclinical and clinical studies that have used FUS for the treatment of epilepsy. A systematic search was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases. All preclinical and clinical studies reporting outcomes of FUS in the treatment of epilepsy were included in the systematic review. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine safety in clinical studies and seizure activity reduction in preclinical studies. A total of 24 articles were included in the study. Meta-analysis demonstrated that adverse events occurred in 13% (95% CI = 2-57%) of patients with epilepsy who underwent FUS. The frequency of adverse events was higher with the use of FUS for lesioning (36%, 95% CI = 4-88%) in comparison to neuromodulation (5%, 95% CI = 0-71%), although this difference was not significant (P = 0.31). Three-level meta-analysis in preclinical studies demonstrated a reduced spike rate in neuromodulating FUS compared to the control group (P = 0.02). According to this systematic review and meta-analysis, FUS can be considered a safe and feasible approach for treating epileptic seizures, especially in drug-resistant patients. While the efficacy of FUS has been demonstrated in several preclinical studies, further research is necessary to confirm its effectiveness in clinical practice and to determine the adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39521750What 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.