SynthesisEpilepsia2026
Validation of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Risk of Bias Tool against the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in epilepsy research.
Synthesis in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Validation of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Risk of Bias Tool against the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in epilepsy research.Epilepsia · 2026Pooled it
- Prognostic value of the CALLY index for functional outcomes in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and exploratory quantitative synthesis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSystematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are critical for synthesizing evidence and guiding clinical and public health decision-making. This study aims to evaluate the reliability, validity and reproducibility of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Epidemiology Risk of Bias Tool by comparing it against the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to inform whether the ILAE tool may serve as a valid alternative in epilepsy-focused evidence syntheses.
methodsThis study was planned a priori on three consecutive SRMAs. We assessed 54 observational studies included in these SRMAs focused on psychiatric comorbidities in persons with epilepsy. Eligible studies had ≥30 participants per group and validated criteria for diagnosing epilepsy and psychiatric conditions. Two independent raters scored all studies using both tools. The ILAE tool comprises six specific domains: (1) Source of Study Population; (2) Completeness (Sensitivity) of Epilepsy Case-Finding; (3) Sensitivity of Comorbidity Determination; (4) Accuracy of Epilepsy Diagnosis; (5) Accuracy of Comorbidity Diagnosis; and (6) Representativeness of Study Sample. Test-retest reproducibility used intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlation used Spearman's rho. Agreement used weighted kappa. Bland-Altman analysis reported mean difference.
resultsThere was a strong positive correlation between NOS scores and ILAE ratings (Spearman's rho = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-89, p < 0.001). Cohen's weighted kappa was 0.68 (95% CI 0.37-0.92, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman mean difference was 0.09 with limits from -0.48 to 0.67, showing good agreement between tools. The ILAE tool showed excellent test-retest reproducibility (ICC 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.94). SIGNIFICANCE: The ILAE tool demonstrated strong reliability and substantial agreement with the NOS while offering epilepsy specific rigor in diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, case finding and representativeness. The ILAE tool offers a reliable, conceptually relevant, field-specific alternative for quality assessment in epilepsy SRMAs.
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.