ArticleEpilepsia2025
A multidisciplinary look into transgender and gender diverse people with epilepsy: An at-risk and underreported population.
Article in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The literature describing transgender (TG) and gender-diverse (GD) people with epilepsy (PWE) is sparse. Gender-affirming care (GAC) can impact epilepsy management due to interactions with anti-seizure medications (ASMs) and the potential effects on seizure control. This is the first study to use clinically-verified data to comprehensively describe this population and the impact of GAC. In this single-center, cross-sectional study, we collaborated with GAC providers to review electronic health records of TG and GD PWE 18 years of age and older. Participants were found by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes along with demographic data then stratified by GAC status. Manual chart review confirmed diagnoses and collected data relating to epilepsy history, GAC, and psychiatric history. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used for analysis to compare those who had received vs not received GAC. Of 120 646 PWE, 65 (0.05%) met inclusion criteria. Among them, 62% identified as TG and 52% received GAC. The majority (80%) started GAC after epilepsy diagnosis. In addition to higher rates of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals who did not receive GAC, there were no significant differences in epilepsy care or psychiatric comorbidity in those who received vs did not receive GAC. Of the whole cohort, 68% of patients had suicidal ideation, 35% suicide attempt, and 29% had psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. We found that despite GAC status there was no significant difference in epilepsy care or ASM prescriptions. Regardless of GAC, the cohort had high rates of suicidal ideation and suicide. Although larger studies are needed, high psychiatric comorbidity, along with potential interactions of GAC with certain ASMs and seizure control, highlights the need for a multidisciplinary approach in caring for TG and GD PWE.
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.