SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Adjunctive treatment for pediatric focal epilepsy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Utilization of Child-Appropriate Medicines: Use of Pediatric Use Marketing Authorisation (PUMA) Products in Croatia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Repeated Valproic Acid Administration Fundamentally Ameliorated Cisplatin-Induced Mechanical Allodynia in Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aim to use a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications and provide a theoretical basis for rational drug use for children and adolescents in adjunctive treatment.
methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for random clinical trials about perampanel, valproic acid, carbamazepine, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, zonisamide, brivaracetam, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, and pregabalin from their inception until December 10, 2023. The included studies' risk of bias was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool (RoB2). The network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15 on the included studies.
resultsSeventeen studies were identified and of these 19 randomized controlled trials evaluating 9 different antiepileptic drugs were included. In total, 2959 patients were covered in the analysis of the outcomes. For efficacy, lacosamide (OR = 1.91, 95%CI 1.14-3.20), lamotrigine (OR = 3.82, 95%CI 1.86-7.83), levetiracetam (OR = 3.01, 95%CI 1.89-4.80), oxcarbazepine (OR = 2.75, 95%CI 1.52-4.96), perampanel (OR = 2.05, 95%CI 1.15-3.65), and zonisamide (OR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.21-4.24) were more effective than placebo in the 50% responder rate. Lamotrigine ranked first on the cumulative probability curve, followed by levetiracetam. Eslicarbazepine acetate (OR = 6.44, 95%CI 1.43-29.00) and levetiracetam (OR = 5.75, 95%CI 2.45-13.50) were better than placebo in seizure freedom. For safety, topiramate (OR = 4.11, 95%CI 1.43-11.76) and oxcarbazepine (OR = 2.72, 1.28-5.76) were more likely to cause adverse effects in children or adolescents compared to placebo.
conclusionIn terms of efficacy and safety, lamotrigine and levetiracetam may be selected preferentially for the adjunctive treatment of focal epilepsy in children and adolescents. However, owing to the limited random clinical trials, our results need to be verified by further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39948216What 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.