Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40144688›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025

Unlocking the Potential of Telemedicine in Epilepsy: Noninferiority Analysis of Efficacy and Identifying Patient Preferences.

Ruta Yardi, Christopher J McLouth, Ana M Roman Guzman, Rani Priyanka Vasireddy, Sally V Mathias, Lara Jehi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ruta YardiKentucky Neurological Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7914-9585
Christopher J McLouthDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5434-9748
Ana M Roman GuzmanKentucky Neurological Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1029-9261
Rani Priyanka VasireddyKentucky Neurological Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3875-6492
Sally V MathiasKentucky Neurological Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2928-8036
Lara JehiCleveland Clinic, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8041-6377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: This study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of telemedicine visits with traditional in-person visits for epilepsy care and simultaneously attempts to identify patient demographics favoring telehealth. Methods: We retrospectively collected demographic and clinical data from all adult epilepsy clinic visits at the University of Kentucky between July 2021 and September 2022. A propensity model using inverse probability of treatment weighting was constructed to examine the association between these variables and the choice of telemedicine vs in-person visits. The study investigated the effect of visit type on 5 specific clinical outcomes, using stabilized weights derived from the propensity model to adjust for confounding. Noninferiority analyses were conducted to compare telemedicine and in-person visits, with a predefined noninferiority margin set at a difference in proportions of 0.10. Results: Among 442 encounters included in the final analysis, 155 (35.1%) were in-person, while 287 (64.9%) were virtual. Telemedicine was noninferior to in-person visits for making antiseizure medication (ASM) regimen changes, discussing epilepsy surgery, and in postvisit emergency department visits for breakthrough seizures. The incidence of postvisit seizures and abnormalities on neurologic examination between visit modalities differed but did not meet the criteria for noninferiority. A propensity model identified 3 key variables influencing the decision to choose telehealth-age, distance to the clinic, and presence of a significant other. The likelihood of preferring telehealth increased by 42% for every 10-year decrease in age. Similarly, with every 50 miles an individual had to drive, their preference for a telemedicine visit increased by 33%. Finally, individuals in a relationship were more likely to prefer telehealth visits. Discussion: Telemedicine proves to be an effective and noninferior alternative to in-person appointments, proving particularly beneficial in overcoming geographic barriers to access. A hybrid model of mixed visit types can help overcome the limitations of conducting a thorough neurologic examination. Younger individuals, those facing long travel distances, and patients with significant others prefer current telemedicine technology. This emphasizes the need for future advancements in more user-friendly and affordable technology tailored toward diverse demographic needs.

Identifiers

PMID40144688
PMCPMC11936337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.