ReviewJournal of epilepsy research2025
Clinical Utility of Magnetoencephalography in Epilepsy Evaluation: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of epilepsy research, 2025. 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.
- Opportunities for Quantum Sensing in Epilepsy Diagnostics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Unlocking Comprehensive Epilepsy Care: The Dual Promise of Magnetoencephalography.Journal of epilepsy research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a non-invasive neurophysiological technique offering high spatial resolution for localizing epileptogenic zones in epilepsy, especially when traditional electroencephalography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is inconclusive. A systematic evaluation of MEG's diagnostic and prognostic utility within combination strategies is crucial, particularly in countries like South Korea with limited MEG access. We conducted a qualitative systematic review of nine studies (n=354 focal epilepsy patients) to evaluate MEG's clinical performance in presurgical workup. Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, KoreaMed, KMbase, RISS) were searched. Data extraction focused on localization accuracy and surgical outcomes (Engel class I); risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2. MEG alone achieved up to the mid-70% range; however, integration with other modalities (e.g., with positron emission tomography/high-density electroencephalography) significantly improved both localization and surgical outcomes. Pediatric focal cortical dysplasia patients showed Engel class I outcomes of 67-87%. Most studies had low-to-moderate bias. Only one MEG system is operational in South Korea (introduced 2023), limiting accessibility. Canadian economic evaluations, despite higher initial costs, suggest MEG is long-term cost-effective, improving quality-adjusted life years. MEG offers complementary diagnostic value in epilepsy evaluation and surgical planning, enhancing localization and outcome prediction, especially for pediatric and MRI-negative patients. Considering this clinical utility, national support for MEG equipment and its regional expansion in South Korea is crucial to ensure equitable access and optimal patient care.
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.