ArticleEpilepsia2025
How often do caregivers attend their child when a seizure detection device alerts for a nocturnal major motor seizure?
Article in Epilepsia, 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.
- Temporal Divergence of True and False Alarms in Pediatric Nocturnal Seizure Monitoring.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- How often do caregivers attend their child when a seizure detection device alerts for a nocturnal major motor seizure?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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDevelopment in seizure detection devices has focused mainly on detection performance. Yet, in order to serve their function in preventing harmful situations and even sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), caregivers need to respond to seizure alarms. This aspect has not been studied so far. We therefore determined caregiver attendance in response to an alarm from a seizure detection device in a real-world family home setting and evaluated the determinants affecting this rate.
methodsWe examined caregiver attendance using video recordings from the PROMISE trial, a home-based study designed to determine the performance of the NightWatch seizure detection device. Attendance was recorded when a caregiver approached the child within 15 min after the alarm. We evaluated attendance to each true alarm, and we randomly selected one false alarm of the same subject, if available, to evaluate attendance as well. We also collected several child- and alarm-related determinants, which we analyzed for effect on attendance using a generalized estimated equation (GEE).
resultsWe included 461 true positive alarms for 31 children and matched them to 311 false alarms. The overall attendance rate for true positive alarms was 64%, with a median individual attendance rate of 100% per child. The individual attendance rate to false alarms (median 50%) was significantly lower when comparing the response to true positive alarms (p < .001). Nine caregivers always responded to alarms regardless of their nature, whereas two never attended to any alarm. The presence of seizure-related sounds (odds ratio [OR] 7.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.74-15.96) and having a lower seizure frequency (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.75) were associated with higher attendance rates. SIGNIFICANCE: We found that rates of attendance to nocturnal major motor seizure alarms were generally high, although variation existed among caregivers. These findings highlight the need for counseling when implementing seizure detection devices in epilepsy care.
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.