SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Assessing the efficacy of trigeminal nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is challenging as the conventional anti-epileptic drugs have failed to control seizures in these patients. In recent years, neuromodulation therapies have gained attention, specifically trigeminal nerve stimulation(TNS) for seizure control has emerged as an effective therapeutic option. However, its precise effectiveness, particularly as measured by response rates and seizure reduction rates, remains debated. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a meta-analysis of the existing original studies across PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and Web of Science medical databases from inception to 31 October 2024. We aimed to include studies discussing trigeminal nerve stimulation, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TNS in managing DRE. A total of 9 eligible studies were included. Our meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 411 patients. Pooled analysis of double-arm studies demonstrated that TNS significantly increased the response rate at 3 months (RR 2.03, 95% CI [1.07, 3.84], P-value for effect = 0.03). The effect was not significant at 6 or 12 months (6 months: RR 3.00, 95% CI [0.41, 21.98], P-value for effect = 0.28; 12 months: RR 3.24, 95% CI [0.39, 26.97], P-value for effect = 0.28). TNS showed borderline statistical significance reduction in seizure frequency compared to sham at 3 months (RR 2.85,95%CI[0.99,8.22], P = 0.05). The effect was not significant at 6 or 12 months (6 months: RR 3.01,95% CI[0.44, 20.58], P = 0.26; 12 months: RR 3.26,95%CI[0.38,27.68], P = 0.28). In single-arm analysis, the pooled proportion of patients achieving a response (≥ 50% seizure reduction) was 42% (95% CI: 30% to 54%) at 3 months, 48% (95% CI: 36% to 61%) at 6 months, and 45% (95% CI: 30% to 60%) at 12 months. The mean percentage seizure reduction was 29% (95% CI: 8% to 51%) at 3 months, 40% (95% CI: 28% to 52%) at 6 months, and 46% (95% CI: 29% to 62%) at 12 months. This meta-analysis provides evidence supporting TNS as a well-tolerated therapy with a statistically significant short-term effect at 3 months. Point estimates at 6 and 12 months suggest potential long-term benefit, but the evidence is fragile due to imprecise and wide confidence intervals. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm the long-term efficacy of TNS for DRE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41087619What 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.