SynthesisEpilepsia2026
Can we predict surgical outcomes: A systematic review and critical appraisal of clinical prediction models in epilepsy surgery.
Synthesis in Epilepsia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrediction models are increasingly being sought in epilepsy surgery to predict postoperative outcomes and support clinical decision-making. Studies summarizing the evidence in this area can provide insight into the type of surgical prediction models, their methodology, and their performance and inform areas for future research. Our aim was to address these knowledge gaps through a comprehensive systematic review of prediction models in epilepsy surgery.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using four databases. Papers were included if they were primary research studies, human-based, studied adult or pediatric populations, studied people with epilepsy undergoing surgical management, and developed or validated a multivariable tool to predict epilepsy surgery outcomes. Data extraction was reviewed in triplicate, and the quality of evidence in each paper was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.
resultsThe literature search yielded a total of 11 614 papers, with 42 papers and 113 prediction models included in the final analysis. The median area under the curve and accuracy for all models were .75 (interquartile range = .68-.83) and .76 (interquartile range = .69-.83), respectively. Overall, 54.0% of models underwent internal validation, and 20.4% underwent external validation. Models of cognitive-language outcomes seemed to perform better than those for other outcomes. Overall risk of bias was high in 81% of models, with weakest performance in outcomes and analyses, but trended toward improvement over time. Concerns for applicability were low in 89% of the models. SIGNIFICANCE: Prediction models in epilepsy surgery are rapidly proliferating, but most lack external validation, and many still exhibit a high risk of bias. Therefore, caution is needed when interpreting and applying these predictive tools. Evidence of improvement in methodological quality holds promise for enhancing patient care, if coupled with improved model performance.
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.