ReviewFrontiers in public health2025
Remote follow-up for pediatric epilepsy: effective care with equity-focused oversight.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pediatric epilepsy care is often constrained by follow-up bottlenecks-travel burden, caregiver time loss, and limited pediatric neurology capacity-leading to fragmented management and preventable utilization. Methods: We conducted a narrative mini-review of studies and practice statements (2019-2025) identified in PubMed and Scopus, prioritizing pediatric populations and major guidelines relevant to tele-follow-up, adherence and refills, unplanned care, equity, privacy, data governance, and implementation; no meta-analysis was performed. Results: Evidence indicates that, for established patients, video or telephone visits can safely support medication titration, adverse-effect checks, seizure-diary review, counseling, and care coordination, with performance broadly comparable to clinic visits for these tasks when used judiciously. Tele-follow-up is inappropriate for new diagnoses, acute neurologic change, or other red flags requiring examination and electroencephalography. Effective implementation relies on risk-stratified schedules, predefined escalation thresholds and time-to-action, nurse-led triage, and measured substitution rather than wholesale replacement of in-person care. Equity risks persist for families with low connectivity, low income, language barriers, or disability; mitigations include device and data subsidies, school-linked access points, multilingual materials, and privacy-by-design with developmentally appropriate consent and auditable safeguards. Conclusion: Tele-follow-up is a feasible complement to clinic care that can reduce burden while maintaining quality when paired with transparent oversight. We propose a practical oversight approach using key performance indicators with equity stratifiers to monitor completion, adherence, and unplanned care, and outline research priorities on longer-term outcomes in under-connected populations, privacy impact evaluations, interoperability, and pragmatic trials with equity endpoints.
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.