ArticlePloS one2025
Detecting poststroke epilepsy in nationwide administrative data: A validation study using Swedish registers.
Article in PloS one, 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
objectiveHealthcare administrative data often rely on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system, which lacks specific codes to identify etiological subgroups of epilepsy. Combining indicators for epilepsy and potential etiologies is possible, but such approaches require validation. This study aimed to validate methods for identifying poststroke epilepsy (PSE) in Swedish administrative data.
methodsThe algorithms were based on combinations of ICD-10 codes for stroke and seizures, with some also incorporating antiseizure medication prescriptions. We focused on positive predictive values (PPVs), using medical records as the reference standard. We identified individuals in the National Patient Register with a primary inpatient diagnostic code for stroke (I61 or I63) during 2005-2010 and a first-ever seizure-related code (G40, G41, or R56.8), occurring more than seven days post-stroke. To facilitate access to medical records, only patients who were deceased at data extraction (Jan 16, 2021) were eligible. A nationwide random sample of 500 patients was selected, with the intended sample for medical record review being 250. Medical records were reviewed before processing the administrative data.
resultsRecords were obtained for 321 patients (median age 78; 56% males), with no significant differences in characteristics between those included and the rest of the sample. Across different algorithms, PPVs ranged from 84.1% (95% CI: 79.2-88.3) to 92.5% (95% CI: 87.3-96.1). Relative coverage ranged from 60% to 89% compared to the most inclusive algorithm. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings demonstrate the potential of administrative data to reliably identify PSE cases, supporting the use of these algorithms for large-scale studies of treatment and outcomes. Stricter algorithms, limited to G40 codes for epilepsy or requiring ASM prescriptions, improve accuracy but at the cost of missing more cases. Limitations include the inability to calculate sensitivity due to study design, and the need for local validation before use in other healthcare systems.
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.