ArticleEpilepsy & behavior reports2026
CORE-VNS: Dosing and titration of VNS therapy in contemporary clinical practice.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this analysis of dosing and titration in the CORE-VNS study, we aimed to replicate previously published findings related to dosing and titration of VNS Therapy and describe the impact of Scheduled Programming (SP).Participants who received their first VNS Therapy device during the CORE-VNS study and who attended at least one of either the 6- or 12-month follow-ups were selected for this analysis. Various statistical models (generalized linear mixed models, weighted Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Poisson regression) were used to assess the relationship between VNS titration and clinical response. Participants who were predominantly manually titrated were compared to those who were predominantly titrated using SP. 526 participants met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. The majority were titrated manually (n = 364), compared with the SP feature (n = 162). We found a strong relationship between speed of titration and onset of clinical response but did not find SP use to significantly impact time-to-dose. The mean time-to-response in the SP group was 7.8 months, compared to a mean time-to-response of 10.7 months for manually titrated patients but this effect was not significant in the Cox regression. Patients who were titrated using SP were able to complete their titration phase with fewer required in-office visits than manually titrated patients (p < 0.0001). We replicate prior findings that titration speed of VNS impacts the time to response. Scheduled Programming does not appear to strongly impact titration speed but aids the clinical workflow and reduces patient burden by reducing the frequency of required in-office titration visits.
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.