Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41773460›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2026

Defining the end point of status epilepticus: A scoping review and framework for standardization.

Fawad A Khan, Margaret T Gopaul, Samuel L Carter, Anil Chimakurthy, Summer Skelton, Lawrence J Hirsch, Eugen Trinka

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Fawad A KhanInternational Center for Epilepsy at Ochsner, Ochsner Neurosciences Institute, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0486-5004
Margaret T GopaulDepartment of Neurology, Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1329-3258
Samuel L CarterDivision of Neurocritical Care, Ochsner Neuroscience Institute, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-9348
Anil ChimakurthyDepartment of Neurology, Decatur Morgan Hospital, Decatur, Alabama, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-6253
Summer SkeltonM3D Lab, Ochsner Neuroscience Institute, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9496-1284
Lawrence J HirschDepartment of Neurology, Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6333-832X
Eugen TrinkaDepartment of Neurology, Neurocritical Care, and Neurorehabilitation, Christian Doppler University Hospital, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, member of European Reference Network EpiCARE, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5950-2692

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency with consensus-driven definitions for onset but no standardized criteria for its end point. This gap creates uncertainty in research and clinical practice. We conducted a scoping review to evaluate how end points have been defined in SE research and to identify key areas of variability. Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials; 1980-2025) yielded 3940 citations (1674 unique). After screening, 207 studies met the inclusion criteria and were charted using scoping review methodology (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for scoping reviews). Data were extracted on terminology, electroencephalography (EEG) use, temporal thresholds, and definitions of therapeutic success across retrospective and prospective designs. Five domains of heterogeneity were identified: (1) semantic terminology (e.g., "resolved," "controlled," "terminated," "cessation"); (2) EEG confirmation of the SE end point (reported in 54% of studies, with variable criteria); (3) whether time was included in defining the end point; (4) how quickly seizures were judged to have stopped, based on clinical signs, EEG findings, or both; and (5) how long seizure freedom had to be maintained to count as a successful end point. No consistent global or time-based patterns were identified, and overlapping terminology further limited comparison across studies. Despite established consensus definitions for SE onset, the end point remains variably defined, undermining methodological rigor and limiting cross-study synthesis. A unified, consensus-driven framework is urgently needed to standardize SE end points through the use of standard terminology and methodologies, thereby strengthening clinical trial design and facilitating regulatory evaluation of novel therapies.

Indexed as

Endpoint DeterminationStatus EpilepticusElectroencephalographyHumansTerminology as Topicconsensus definitionsEEGend pointrefractory SEscoping reviewseizure cessationsuperrefractory SEtherapeutic response

Identifiers

PMID41773460
PMCPMC13285238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.