Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41201207›Full record

ReviewEpilepsia2026

Epilepsy treatment over time: The chess game analogy for choosing, adjusting, and adding antiseizure medications.

André Palmini, André Gus, Lecio Figueira Pinto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

André PalminiDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
André GusPorto Alegre Epilepsy Surgery Program, Hospital São Lucas, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Lecio Figueira PintoHospital de Clinicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2694-5120

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico Research productivity scholarship # 314492/2023-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recurrent seizures have such a negative impact upon the lives of persons with epilepsy that their prevention is a constant preoccupation of neurologists. Despite the large number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available and of publications on their putative efficacy, adverse effects, and order of preference to start treatment, there is very little information on how to manage treatment over time. Here, we propose the analogy of a chess game to encourage neurologists to develop strategic decisions at each point in time to correctly manage ASMs toward the best possible degree of seizure control. We leverage that the strategy of the chess player must be adapted to each move of the opponent, to emphasize the need to individualize the treatment of epileptic seizures according to variations in response to ASMs that occur over time. The chess player calculates the best move at each point in the chess game just as the neurologist draws upon their knowledge and experience to select the best ASM regimen for a given patient and adjust it based on their "gestalt" of the patient's response to each treatment change. This gestalt, however, is firmly grounded in rational, flexible adaptations to ASM treatment protocols. Strategic decision-making in several epilepsy scenarios is given to illustrate the utility of the chess analogy.

Indexed as

AnticonvulsantsEpilepsyClinical Decision-MakingHumansAnticonvulsantsantiseizure medicationschessboard gameepilepsy treatmentstrategic decisionstreatment management over time

Identifiers

PMID41201207
PMCPMC12927689

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.