ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2025
No single treatment modality exhibits clear superiority for infantile spasms syndrome: insights from a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfantile spasms syndrome is a severe form of infantile epilepsy. It is commonly treated with hormonal therapies or vigabatrin, either alone or in combination. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of these treatment modalities and explore associations with aetiology, and pre-existing developmental delay.
methodsPatients diagnosed with and treated for infantile spasms syndrome at the University Hospital of Leuven between 1 January 2018 and 23 November 2022, were identified. Retrospective clinical data were analysed descriptively. Short-term and long-term outcomes determined the efficacy of the current treatments, with seizure freedom and sustained normal development at 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation as primary treatment goals.
resultsThe study included 26 patients. No single treatment modality demonstrated clear superiority in terms of both short-term and long-term outcomes. Patients with unknown aetiology showed better developmental outcomes after 12 months than those with proven aetiology (30.77% with normal development versus 7.69%.) Another clear difference in treatment efficacy emerged between patients with and without pre-existing developmental issues, with only 6.67% achieving normal development after 12 months compared to 36.36%, respectively.
conclusionNo single treatment modality demonstrated clear superiority. Associations were found between treatment efficacy and aetiology as well as pre-existing developmental delay, suggesting these as potential prognostic indicators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39738969What 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.