SynthesisEpilepsia2026
Are single-item global rating scales the same, better, or worse than multi-item scales in epilepsy: A scoping review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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.
- The effect of previous team environment on the current motivation in Japanese varsity soccer players.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Ictal gamma increase shows preferential localization to seizure onset contacts in stereoelectroencephalography.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the performance of single-item global ratings (SIGRs) and multi-item scales (MISs) in epilepsy research, and assess the influence of diverse constructs, study designs, and statistical methods.
methodsSystematic scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 onward. English-language articles including ≥30 persons with epilepsy and using at least one SIGR and one MIS were analyzed. Citation screening at all levels was done independently by two reviewers; data extraction was standardized. We analyzed individual measurements of effect magnitude for SIGRs and MISs. For meta-analyses, correlation-related metrics were transformed to Pearson r and Fisher z transformed, and effect-size metrics were converted to Cohen's d with Hedges g correction. Multilevel meta-analyses were used to account for data heterogeneity and clustering of effect sizes within studies, and to assess the influence of predefined moderators. Publication bias was assessed with standard methods.
resultsA total of 18 267 citations were identified, and 58 studies were included. Effect magnitude was medium to large across measurements, and it was slightly larger for MISs than for SIGRs, both for correlations and effect sizes (difference = .04, p < .001). Overall, SIGRs and MISs were comparable, and statistically significant differences did not cross effect thresholds (from small to medium or medium to large). Correlations and effect sizes for SIGRs and MISs were lowest in studies involving children and when assessing change; and for SIGRs when Global Clinical Impression (GCI) formats were used. SIGNIFICANCE: SIGRs are likely comparable to MISs across multiple study and statistical contexts. However, in certain clinical scenarios, MISs will outperform SIGRs and vice versa. Researchers should carefully consider whether SIGRs, MISs, or a combination is most appropriate to answer the research question.
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.