ArticleEpilepsia2025
Basic and preclinical epilepsy research Scientists' perception of clinical epileptology.
Article in Epilepsia, 2025. 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.
- On-site exposure to clinical epilepsy practice for experimental scientists engaged in epilepsy research: A pilot study by the ILAE commission on neurobiology.Epilepsia open · 2026Article
- ILAE-YES global webinar series: Integrating clinical and basic science in epilepsy research.Epilepsia open · 2026Article
- Basic and preclinical epilepsy research Scientists' perception of clinical epileptology.Epilepsia · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The interaction between basic science epilepsy researchers and clinical epileptologists is a longstanding issue. Efforts to provide opportunities for a dialogue between preclinical and clinical epilepsy professionals are crucial to reduce the knowledge gap between them and improve the translational success of neurobiology-based research. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Research and Innovation Task Force circulated a survey to investigate the need for an update on new clinical epilepsy concepts within the basic science community. The 336 respondents included basic scientists (BS), preclinical scientists (PCSs), and/or clinical scientists (CSs). The majority of the 237 BSs/PCSs were engaged in preclinical studies in translational epilepsy research and declared translational research as a priority research interest. Fewer respondents from low-middle-income countries than from upper-middle or high-income countries (40.7% vs 65%) considered translational research a critical aspect of their research. A broad understanding of both clinical and neurobiological aspects of epilepsy was declared by 48% of BSs/PCSs; 96% of CSs declared a superficial knowledge of neurobiology of epilepsy. Most BSs/PCSs were aware that epilepsy is a complex condition that should be investigated with the help of clinical epileptologists, even though concerns were expressed on the relationship with clinicians. A focused training program on emerging clinical epileptological aspects tailored for BSs/PCSs was recommended by 81% of the participants; the majority of respondents preferred either 1- or 2-week in-presence tutoring or continuous online training coordinated by ILAE at the regional/national level. The survey also underscored the value of educational programs on neurobiology of epilepsy targeting CSs and low-middle-income countries (LMIC) investigators.
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.