AES ILAE North America Symposium: Guiding Evidence-Based Epilepsy Management.

Nathalie Jette, Kette Valente, Nicholas S Abend, Lara Jehi, Lacey Smith, J Helen Cross

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsy currents, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nathalie JetteDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1351-5866

Kette ValenteNeuroscience Unit for Epilepsy and Neurodevelopmental Disorders, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5008-0809

Nicholas S AbendDivision of Neurology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Lara JehiEpilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8041-6377

Lacey SmithDepartment of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

J Helen CrossDevelopmental Neurosciences, University College London NIHR BRC Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) provide evidence-based recommendations to optimize patient care. Their development should be rigorous and include defining the scope, conducting systematic reviews, evaluating the quality of the evidence and formulating recommendations that are linked to the evidence. When peer reviewed evidence is insufficient to inform CPGs, consensus-based recommendations (CBR) are an alternative. Both CPG and CBR are essential to inform best practices and inform health policy. This review highlights recent epilepsy CPG and CBR about genetic testing, neonatal seizures, pediatric depression, epilepsy surgery referral timing and addresses their impact on outcomes.

Indexed as

clinical practice standardconsensus-based recommendationsDelphiguidelineseizure

Identifiers

PMID41768593

DOI10.1177/15357597261416718

PMCPMC12948701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.