Trial reportEpilepsia2025
How accurate are witnesses of first suspected seizures in recalling semiology at clinically relevant timepoints? A UK experimental study with a pilot intervention.
Trial report in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Sounding the Alarm: Accuracy of Seizure Detection Devices.Epilepsy currents · 2026Article
- Agree to Disagree: Reliability of Seizure Frequency Assessments.Epilepsy currents · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA key diagnostic challenge at "first seizure" clinic appointments is determining whether the reported event was epileptic. Witness accounts are often critical, yet such appointments typically occur weeks after the event. Guidelines recommend review within 2 weeks. Wait times are however often longer, with a median of 7 weeks in countries such as the UK. The accuracy of witness recall at these clinically relevant intervals and whether their confidence predicts accuracy have never been determined. This study addressed these fundamental questions. It also piloted a potential intervention: whether asking witnesses a set of systematic questions immediately after viewing a suspected seizure improves recall at follow-up, compared to the usual free recall approach used by first responders.
methodsIn this UK-based experimental study, adults (≥18 years old) viewed a video of an epileptic seizure and were randomized into four conditions: A (immediate free recall + 2-week follow-up), B (immediate free recall + 7-week follow-up), C (immediate systematic questions + 2-week follow-up), and D (immediate systematic questions + 7-week follow-up). The primary outcome was accuracy on 15 standardized questions addressing key semiological features, scored against consensus ratings from five neurologists.
resultsOf a representative sample of 304 participants, 295 (97%) fully viewed the video, and 94.7% completed follow-up. At 2 weeks, participants answered 54.4% of questions correctly-only 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .52-7.3) more than those at 7 weeks. Confidence was poorly correlated with accuracy. Immediate systematic questioning improved later recall by 6.7% (95% CI = 3.3-10.0). A definitive trial of this intervention would require 926 participants. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first evidence on the accuracy of witness recall at clinically relevant intervals. Recall is modest even within recommended timeframes and declines only slightly by 7 weeks. Witness confidence does not predict accuracy. Immediate structured questioning may enhance later recall and thus support seizure diagnoses.
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.