ArticleBMC neurology2026
The scale for estimating prognosis of epilepsy to predict in patients with epilepsy: a 506-patient cohort study.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of the Scale for Estimating Prognosis of Epilepsy (SEPE) in identifying drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), using the 2010 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition as the reference standard.
methodsA total of 506 hospitalized patients with epilepsy, including 57 who underwent epilepsy surgery, were enrolled. DRE was defined according to 2010 ILAE criteria, and the reproducibility of SEPE’s predictive risk factors was examined. SEPE scores were then assigned to all patients, and the concordance between SEPE-based predictions and ILAE-defined DRE diagnoses was assessed after one to two years of follow-up in the full cohort (n = 506) and in the subset excluding surgical cases (n = 449). Finally, distinct clinical patterns of DRE, including persistence and fluctuating forms, were identified, and the associations between SEPE scores and these subtypes were analyzed.
resultsMultivariate logistic regression identified seizures occurring across the sleep–wake cycle, multiple seizure types, and at least one seizure within two months as independent risk factors for DRE. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for SEPE in identifying ILAE-defined DRE was 0.6827 (95% CI: 0.6322–0.7245) in the full cohort and 0.6812 (95% CI: 0.6302–0.7382) after excluding surgical cases. Among patients with SEPE scores ≥ 6, 91.2% met the ILAE criteria for DRE, with sensitivity of 63.9% and specificity of 96.2%, whereas 89.4% of those with scores ≤ 4 were drug-responsive, with sensitivity of 87.2% and specificity of 87.1%. For scores with 4 < SEPE < 6, 34% had DRE, 53% were drug-responsive, and 24.9% of patients with scores ≤ 3 achieved seizure freedom without antiseizure medications (ASMs). In patients with DRE defined by the ILAE criteria, SEPE scores ≥ 6 were associated with intractable DRE without remission, while scores ≤ 4 were frequently linked to seizure control following appropriate ASM adjustments.
conclusionThe SEPE may serve as a useful tool for estimating the risk of DRE and for stratifying patients with epilepsy based on its constituent predictive factors. It may be particularly helpful for physicians—especially general neurologists who are not epilepsy specialists.
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.