GuidelineNeurocritical care2026
Guidelines for Seizure Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Supratentorial Neurosurgery: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.
Guideline in Neurocritical care, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is significant heterogeneity related to the use of prophylactic antiseizure medications (ASM) following supratentorial craniotomy.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing ASM primary prophylaxis in adults hospitalized following supratentorial neurosurgery with no prior seizure history. The following population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) questions were assessed: (1) Should ASM versus no ASM be used as seizure prophylaxis in adult patients undergoing supratentorial neurosurgery? (2) If an ASM is used, should levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) be preferentially used? and (3) Should a long (> 7 days) versus short (≤ 7 days) duration of prophylaxis be used? The main outcomes were early seizure (≤ 14 days), late seizures (> 14 days), adverse events, mortality, and functional and cognitive outcomes. We utilized Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to generate recommendations.
resultsThe initial literature search yielded 1988 articles, and 16 formed the basis of the recommendations. PICO 1: while meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated a significant benefit for early seizure prevention, meta-analyses including all study designs was nonsignificant. Further, there were no differences in late seizure or mortality rates, and there was a trend toward higher adverse event rates with ASM. PICO 2: LEV was associated with significantly lower early seizure rates than PHT, and there were trends toward fewer late seizures and adverse events with LEV. PICO 3: only three studies examined the duration of ASM treatment, and there was no significant difference in seizure events between subjects treated for a short versus long duration.
conclusionsWe suggest that either prophylactic ASM or no ASM be used for seizure prophylaxis in patients undergoing supratentorial neurosurgery (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence). If an ASM is used, we suggest LEV over PHT (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for a short duration (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
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.