ReviewBMJ neurology open2025
Prognosis of people with focal epilepsy treated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs): a narrative review of current evidence and future directions.
Review in BMJ neurology open, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epilepsy is a chronic, neurological disorder that affects 65 million people worldwide. Two-thirds are estimated to become seizure free with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), while one-third will ultimately develop drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Although >30 ASMs are now available, treatment outcomes among all epilepsies do not appear to have improved. There is a paucity of prognostic evidence specific to focal epilepsies, despite focal epilepsy being one of the most common forms of epilepsy and an independent risk factor for developing DRE. Accurate prognostication has largely been limited by variable definitions of treatment response in the literature. Use of the current International League Against Epilepsy treatment response definitions in research studies and clinical practice may improve the quality of prognostic evidence, as well as help identify important phenotypes of treatment responsiveness. This is particularly important as pharmacological treatments for epilepsy continue to expand without clear evidence we are improving outcomes.
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.