Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40845030›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Development of a consensus-based core outcome set for post-treatment recovery in adults with epilepsy and comorbid depression or anxiety: A Delphi and ICF-guided protocol.

Yan Wang, Zaibang Feng, Zhiyue Guo, Hongxia Xing, Zhaohong Guo, Xinli Zhao, Zubing Mei

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yan WangDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China.
Zaibang FengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine and Physiotherapy, Changhai Hospital, Naval Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zhiyue GuoDepartment of Physiology and Pathophysiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China.
Hongxia XingDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China.
Zhaohong GuoSchool of Health Management, Xinxiang Medical College, Xinxiang, China.
Xinli ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Zhanjiang Central People's Hospital, Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province, China.
Zubing MeiDepartment of Anorectal Surgery, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5012-957X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUp to 50% of adult patients with epilepsy experience comorbid depression or anxiety, complicating post-treatment recovery and requiring tailored outcome assessment. No core outcome set (COS) exists for this dual-diagnosis population, unlike broader epilepsy COSs or quality-of-life COSs for drug-resistant epilepsy, which do not prioritize mental health comorbidities. This protocol outlines the development of a standardized COS to evaluate post-treatment recovery in adults with epilepsy and comorbid depression or anxiety, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework to ensure a biopsychosocial perspective. This COS aims to enhance cross-study comparability and inform personalized care for this underserved group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will employ a three-phase process: (1) A systematic review of outcomes in epilepsy with comorbid depression or anxiety in adult patients, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including outcomes such as seizure control, mood stability, cognitive function, social reintegration, and suicide-related outcomes; (2) Mapping outcomes to ICF domains (body functions, activities, participation) for comprehensive coverage; and (3) A three-round Delphi survey using a 9-point Likert scale to achieve consensus among an international panel of ≥60 stakeholders, including neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, patients, and caregivers, with ≥20% from low- and middle-income countries. Consensus requires ≥70% agreement on scores of 7-9 (critically important) and ≤15% on 1-3 (low importance). The COS will capture domains like seizure control, mood stability, cognitive function, and social reintegration. DISCUSSION: This COS will address a critical gap by standardizing outcome measurement for adults with epilepsy and mental health comorbidities, complementing broader COSs, such as the Epilepsy Outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials (EPSET), by focusing on mental health recovery, including suicide-related outcomes, and extending quality-of-life-focused sets, such as those using the Quality of Life in Epilepsy (QOLIE) scales, to include neurological and functional outcomes. The ICF-guided, patient-inclusive approach ensures global relevance. Potential limitations, including stakeholder bias, will be mitigated through diverse recruitment and robust consensus methods.

conclusionThis protocol leverages Delphi methodology and ICF principles to develop a novel COS for a complex dual-diagnosis population. By prioritizing mental health recovery in adults, including critical outcomes like suicide prevention, it offers a distinct tool to enhance research and clinical practice, with future validation planned to ensure applicability across settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024576141.

Indexed as

AnxietyDepressionEpilepsyAdultComorbidityConsensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueHumansInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40845030
PMCPMC12373203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.