ArticleEpilepsy & behavior reports2026
Current best medical practices survey in vagus nerve stimulation programming.
Article in Epilepsy & behavior reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vagal Nerve Stimulator Therapy (VNS) uses programmable duty cycle (DC) and three modes of stimulation: normal mode (NM), heart-rate responsive automatic stimulation mode (AS), and on-demand magnet mode (MM). VNS therapy guidelines exist however; they may not represent real-world best clinical practices. This study aims to identify current best medical practices in VNS programming. Epilepsy VNS practitioners received an anonymous, deidentified IRB-approved online survey at the American Epilepsy Society Meeting (12/3/2023, Orlando Florida). The majority of respondents were US-practicing (n = 45, 78%) epileptologists (n = 43, 74%) programming VNS devices in 50 patients or less in the preceding two years prior to the creation of the survey (n = 39, 67%). Most programmed VNS independently and trained others how to program VNS devices (n = 49, 84%). Large variations in programming of NM, AS, and DC occurred. The median initial and maximum target NM output was 1-1.25 mA (n = 18, 31%) and 2-2.5 mA (n = 23, 40%) respectively. Most (n = 37, 64%) programmed AS current higher than NM. A third subset programmed initial and final AS heart-rate increase thresholds at 40% and 20% respectively (n = 19, 33%). The median anticipated final DC target was 35%. Most achieved final VNS settings at or before 40 weeks (n = 47, 81%) and declared VNS non-responders at 13-36 months after initial programming (n = 37, 64%). Our study identifies variability in VNS programming practices amongst epilepsy practitioners highlighting gaps between guideline recommendations and their clinical application. This study offers critical insights into optimal VNS therapy settings and optimization of VNS therapy outcomes for patients with DRE.
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.