ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Development and internal validation of a prognostic model for predicting tonic-clonic seizures during pregnancy in women with epilepsy.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Associations between epileptic seizures in pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The role of epigenetic signatures in type 2 diabetes: therapeutic advances and lifestyle interventions.Acta diabetologica · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to develop a model to predict the probability of tonic-clonic seizures in women with epilepsy (WWE) at any point during pregnancy until six weeks postpartum.
methodsWe conducted a screening of patients diagnosed with epilepsy and who were pregnant, at a tertiary hospital in China, during the period of 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2020. We then followed up with these patients for at least one year postpartum. A total of 271 eligible patients were included in the cohort. The outcome was the occurrence of a tonic-clonic seizure during pregnancy or within six weeks postpartum. Predictors were screened through univariate analysis, and models were fitted through multivariate logistic regression analysis. Further, we compared the WMU model with the AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE) model in terms of discrimination (the area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), accuracy (GiViTI calibration belt), decision curve analysis (DCA), net reclassification index (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Finally, we plotted a nomogram of the WMU model.
resultsOf the 271 pregnant WWE, 62 patients (22.9%) had the outcome. The WMU model included three predictors: age at the time of pregnancy, admission to hospital for seizures in previous pregnancy, and seizures in the 12 months before pregnancy. Compared to the EMPiRE model, the AUC value of the WMU model was higher (0.76 vs. 0.639, P < 0.05). GiViTI calibration belt showed that the predicted risks of the WMU model were mostly consistent with the observed risks. In terms of DCA, the WMU model revealed the highest net proportional benefit for predicted probability thresholds between 10% and 90%. Additionally, our model exhibited better reclassification performance than the EMPiRE model (NRI: 0.331, P < 0.01 and IDI: 0.129, P < 0.01).
conclusionWe attempted to develop a prognostic model for predicting the risk of tonic-clonic seizures in pregnant WWE. The WMU model showed good performance, but without external validation, it is unclear whether WMU model could be generalized.
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.