ArticleEpilepsia2026
Defining the end point of status epilepticus: A scoping review and framework for standardization.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Associations between duration of status epilepticus and clinical outcomes in adults: a systematic review.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Treatment adequacy outweighs treatment sequence in non-convulsive status epilepticus.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Defining the end point of status epilepticus: A scoping review and framework for standardization.Epilepsia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.