ArticleEpilepsia2026
Do we agree on seizure reduction after vagus nerve stimulation? Interrater reliability of retrospective and prospective seizure frequency ratings from the CONNECTiVOS database.
Article 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agree to Disagree: Reliability of Seizure Frequency Assessments.Epilepsy currents · 2026Article
- The importance of methodological context in pediatric vagus nerve stimulation outcome reporting.Epilepsia · 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
45 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a well-established neuromodulation therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy, treatment outcomes remain heterogeneous. One possible source of variability lies in differing interpretations of seizure frequency ratings (SFRs). This study examined interrater reliability (IRR) in SFRs between (1) retrospective clinician-clinician chart reviews and (2) prospective caregiver-clinician reports, and explored sources of disagreement.
methodsData were collected from the CONNECTiVOS database. In the retrospective cohort (n = 254), two clinicians independently reviewed medical records and rated seizure frequency across multiple timepoints. In the prospective cohort (n = 214), caregivers and clinicians independently reported SFR in children treated with VNS. IRR was assessed across different measurement thresholds, and potential causes of disagreement were analyzed.
resultsClinician-clinician agreement in retrospective chart reviews was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > .90, Cohen κ > .80), with 18.8% divergent ratings and 4.8% exceeding the reliable change index. Disagreement was significantly associated with higher mean seizure frequency at baseline (p = .004) and at postoperative timepoints (p < .001). In the prospective caregiver-clinician comparison, agreement for absolute seizure frequency was poor (ICC < .50), with discrepancies in 86.5% of cases, although only 1.8% were statistically significant. When rating pairs diverged, clinicians more often reported lower absolute seizure frequencies (p = .002) and greater relative seizure reductions (p = .023) and were more likely to classify patients as achieving a 90% reduction (p = .043). SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights interrater variability in both retrospective and prospective SFR assessments, a finding systematically related to baseline seizure frequency. Coarser classifications (e.g., 50% or 90% seizure reduction) may improve agreement but reduce clinical nuance. Future efforts should focus on structured, patient-centered documentation and the development of objective outcome measures in VNS evaluation, particularly for children with high seizure burden.
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.