ReviewEpilepsia2026
Normalization of deviance in neuromodulation for epilepsy.
Review in Epilepsia, 2026. 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
The rapid expansion of neuromodulation therapies for drug resistant epilepsy has introduced a growing risk of normalization of deviance (NoD). This occurs when incremental deviations from established procedures are iteratively reinterpreted as the care standard in the absence of immediate adverse outcomes. While motivated by an urgent need to develop novel therapies to improve the quality-of-life of persons with epilepsy, NoD risks harm to the very individuals these neurotechnologies are designed to help. In this commentary, we borrow from organizational safety research to highlight systemic, institutional, and cultural factors that enable NoD in the pursuit of neuromodulation for epilepsy. We highlight the dual imperative of driving forward innovations in neurotechnologies while prioritizing patient safety. Finally, we propose safeguards against NoD including institutional review, centralized data collection, and cultural shifts that prioritize safety and mitigate risk.
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.