ReviewCureus2026
Levetiracetam as First-Line Anti-seizure Medicine in Electrographically Confirmed Neonatal Seizures: A Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phenobarbitone (PHB), the recommended first-line anti-seizure medicine (ASM) in neonatal seizure (NS), has many side effects needing monitoring and management; therefore, it may not be a good choice in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) with poor facilities. Levetiracetam (LEV), an emerging ASM in NS with a good short-term safety record, is evaluated with or without a comparator ASM as a first-line ASM. Using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, a comprehensive literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, Clinical.Trials, Scopus, Trip database, and NHS Evidence. The quality of the papers was assessed using Critical Appraisal Tool Program (CASP), and the risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data was extracted in a predefined proforma. In total, five retrospective observational studies were included in the review. All included studies suffered from moderate to high ROB. The evidence suggests that when compared to PHB, LEV is possibly equally effective and safer, and, when used without comparison, is effective in neonates with low seizure burden. However, it cannot be recommended as a first-line ASM in NS due to poor quality of evidence. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are urgently needed, preferably from LMICs.
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.