ArticleEpilepsia2026
Optimal approach to standardized documentation in epilepsy clinics: A scoping review.
Article in Epilepsia, 2026. 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.
- Optimal approach to standardized documentation in epilepsy clinics: A scoping review.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clear documentation and transfer of information between health care providers is key to ensuring the delivery of high-quality patient care. Our aim was to determine how to optimize and standardize physician documentation in outpatient epilepsy clinics as well as to highlight challenges and barriers to their implementation. We conducted a scoping review of studies implementing standardization and optimization of physician documentation within outpatient epilepsy clinics. The study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The following databases were searched from inception to March 2025: MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. All abstracts, full texts, and data charting were completed in duplicate. The search yielded 10 268 studies, of which 16 met eligibility criteria. Studies were primarily from the United States (n = 12, 75.0%) and focused on adult practices (n = 9, 56.25%). Studies were quality improvement framework/consensus guideline investigations (n = 9, 56.3%), observational audits/cross-sectional designs (n = 2, 12.5%), and retrospective cohort/chart reviews (n = 2, 12.5%), followed by several mixed-methods development, observational field study, and observational toolkit implementation designs (n = 1, 6.25% each). Most clinical notes were in electronic medical records (n = 14, 87.5%) using free-text fields (n = 4, 25.0%), structured fields (n = 2, 12.5%), or hybrid approaches (n = 7, 43.8%). Common Data Elements included seizure information and treatment counseling information. Outcomes associated with standardized note implementation included reduced epilepsy-related adverse events, better seizure control, and more consistent documentation of pertinent patient information. Highlighted challenges to implementation included workflow disruptions, hesitation to initial uptake, and cost-related barriers such as information technology support. Implementation of standardized documentation was associated with fewer adverse events and better seizure control. Future efforts should prioritize inclusive design, have expanded quality indicators, be easy to use at point of care, and have robust evaluation metrics to optimize their utility for epilepsy 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.