SynthesisBrain and behavior2025
Safety and Efficacy of Eslicarbazepine Acetate in Children Diagnosed With a Focal Seizure Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
backgroundEpilepsy can have a negative impact on cognitive and social functioning. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is used to treat focal seizures, although its safety and efficacy, particularly as an additional treatment, warrant more study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESL in children with focal seizures by analyzing data from relevant clinical trials.
methodsThis study was conducted in line with the PRISMA guidelines and has been registered on the PROSPERO 2024 CRD42024569119 register. A detailed search up to July 2024 through Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Google Scholar was conducted for the studies comparing ESL with placebo. For the meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was applied, and heterogeneity was measured using the I
resultsThe study included a total of 742 children from the randomized controlled trials; of these, 414 were given ESL, whereas 328 were given a placebo. ESL significantly reduced seizure frequency when compared to placebo (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI [-0.57, -0.02]). Nevertheless, it has been related to a greater risk of side effects, including headaches, sleepiness, nausea, vomiting, double vision, and dizziness. Adverse events were measured to evaluate clinical significance. Treatment-emergent-related adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 52.2% of ESL-treated participants versus 49.1% in placebo individuals (RR = 1.08; 95% CI [0.96-1.20]; p = 0.20), indicating no statistically significant increase overall. However, specific adverse events were significantly more common with ESL, including somnolence: RR = 1.95; 95% CI (1.11-3.43); p = 0.02 and diplopia: RR = 4.34; 95% CI (1.60-11.78); p = 0.004. Other common but nonsignificant adverse events included headache (11.49%), vomiting (6.15%), nausea (3.34%), and dizziness (3.2%). Adverse event-related treatment discontinuation was reported in 5.2%-5.9% of ESL patients compared to 2.3%-2.5% of placebo patients. Most adverse events were mild to severe, although serious adverse events (e.g., status epilepticus, device-related problems) were more common in the ESL group.
conclusionThough ESL increases the risk of adverse effects, it dramatically reduces seizure frequency in children with focal epilepsy. These risks require regular monitoring. Subsequent study should focus on long-term effectiveness, safety, and ways to mitigate the negative effects of ESL.
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.