ReviewBiomedicines2024
Methods for Identifying Epilepsy Surgery Targets Using Invasive EEG: A Systematic Review.
Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- qEEG and Functional Connectivity as a Translational Bridge Between Humans and Dogs in Epilepsy and Associated Disorders: From Spontaneous Model to Automatic Classification-An Integrative Review.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Modern Aspects of Invasive Epilepsy Monitoring: Utility for Seizure Localization and Therapeutic Decision-Making.Pediatric neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Methods for Identifying Epilepsy Surgery Targets Using Invasive EEG: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe pre-surgical evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsy achieves seizure freedom in only 50-60% of patients. Efforts to identify quantitative intracranial EEG (qEEG) biomarkers of epileptogenicity are needed. This review summarizes and evaluates the design of qEEG studies, discusses barriers to biomarker adoption, and proposes refinements of qEEG study protocols.
methodsWe included exploratory and prediction prognostic studies from MEDLINE and Scopus published between 2017 and 2023 that investigated qEEG markers for identifying the epileptogenic network as the surgical target. Cohort parameters, ground truth references, and analytical approaches were extracted.
resultsOut of 1789 search results, 128 studies were included. The study designs were highly heterogeneous. Half of the studies included a non-consecutive cohort, with sample sizes ranging from 2 to 166 patients (median of 16). The most common minimum follow-up was one year, and the seizure onset zone was the most common ground truth. Prediction studies were heterogeneous in their analytical approaches, and only 25 studies validated the marker through post-surgical outcome prediction. Outcome prediction performance decreased in larger cohorts. Conversely, longer follow-up periods correlated with higher prediction accuracy, and connectivity-based approaches yielded better predictions. The data and code were available in only 9% of studies.
conclusionsTo enhance the validation qEEG markers, we propose standardizing study designs to resemble clinical trials. This includes using a consecutive cohort with long-term follow-up, validating against surgical resection as ground truth, and evaluating markers through post-surgical outcome prediction. These considerations would improve the reliability and clinical adoption of qEEG markers.
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.