ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Validating the Traditional Chinese version of the Epilepsy Anxiety Survey Instrument (EASI) in Hong Kong.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anxiety disorders are common and have a substantial impact on people with epilepsy (PWE). However, they often go under-recognized. In recent years, epilepsy-specific anxiety has gained increasing attention in the literature. To improve mental health care for people with epilepsy (PWE), we developed and validated the traditional Chinese versions of the Epilepsy Anxiety Survey Instrument (EASI) and its brief screener (brEASI) among PWE in Hong Kong. Method: We developed the TC-EASI through forward and backward translation, followed by a review by an expert panel and a focus group. We tested the instrument among PWE aged 18 years and older using the Chinese Bilingual version of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (CB-SCID), which is the gold standard for diagnosing anxiety disorders. We examined the internal consistency and the test-retest reliability of the TC-EASI and TC-brEASI. We performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the factor structure of the TC-EASI. We also examined convergent and divergent validity using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), the Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E), the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 21 (DASS-21), and the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP). Furthermore, we analyzed the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of the TC-brEASI. Results: We included 203 Chinese PWE; 19.7% had at least one current anxiety disorder, 7.4% had a panic disorder, and 5.9% had agoraphobia without panic disorder. Both internal consistency and test-retest reliability were satisfactory. The TC-EASI revealed two latent constructs: epilepsy-specific anxiety and typical anxiety. Convergent and divergent validity were established. A cut-off score of ≥9 for the TC-brEASI yielded a sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CI = 79.2-99.2%), a specificity of 82.5% (95% CI = 76.8-88.3%), and an area under curve (AUC) of 0.925 (95% CI = 0.887-0.964). Conclusion: The traditional Chinese versions of the EASI and brEASI are reliable and valid epilepsy-specific measures.
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.