ArticleEpilepsia2025
Trajectories of long-term survival after status epilepticus.
Article in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Associations between duration of status epilepticus and clinical outcomes in adults: a systematic review.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- A Predictive Model for Short-Term Mortality After Status Epilepticus: The ACARD Score.Neurology · 2026Article
- Reply to the letter to the editor regarding "diagnosis, treatment, and outcome prediction of non-convulsive status epilepticus in unconscious patients in intensive care units".Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- Fast Acute Sedation at Intensive Care vs. High-Dose IV Anti-seizure Medication for Treatment of Non-convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Trajectories of long-term survival after status epilepticus.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the trajectories of clinical characteristics and prognostic factors among long-term survivors of status epilepticus (SE), given the high mortality during acute hospitalization and in subsequent years.
methodsAdult patients (≥18 years of age) with first-time, non-anoxic SE were identified and included from University Hospitals in Oslo (Norway), Odense (Denmark), Frankfurt, and Marburg (Germany). Demographics, etiology, comorbidities, and seizure characteristics were assessed. Poisson regression was used to model mortality rates over the follow-up period.
resultsBetween 2001 and 2017, we included 1306 patients (median follow-up: 17.4 months). The estimated cumulative proportion surviving at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months were 94.0%, 73.0%, 51.1%, and 39.5%, respectively, with a similar increase in mortality after discharge across all cohorts. Daily mortality peaked during the first 150 days; mortality trajectories differed depending on etiology, SE duration, and age. The clinical characteristics of survivors changed during long-term follow-up; long-term survivors (>36 months) were younger, had shorter SE durations, and had different underlying etiologies. The relative impact of different prognostic factors on the daily mortality shifted during long-term follow-up. Although most established prognostic factors strongly influenced in-hospital mortality, the relative impact of SE duration, comorbidities, and remote symptomatic etiologies first peaked after 6 months. SIGNIFICANCE: The optimal time point to assess survival in the acute phase is at 6 months, whereas evaluating survival after 2.5 years provides reliable estimates of long-term mortality. Assessing SE survival at discharge underestimates the impact of remote symptomatic etiologies and duration of SE on long-term survival.
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.