ArticleEpileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape2026
Informed acceptance and perceptions of the 2025 ILAE seizure classification following structured teaching.
Article in Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess informed acceptance and perceptions of the 2025 update of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) seizure classification-after participants had received a focused educational introduction to the updated classification.
methodsWe analyzed anonymized live poll responses from two educational webinars dedicated to the updated seizure classification: an EpiCARE webinar held on March 26, 2026, and an ILAE e-Forum held on April 15, 2026. At the start of the webinars, participants reported their professional background and prior familiarity with the updated classification. Each webinar then included a 20-min teaching session, after which participants answered a poll question on their opinion of the updated classification. In the EpiCARE webinar, participants additionally classified 16 representative video-EEG cases using the updated classification. For the case exercise, we summarized question-level accuracy, the most frequent incorrect answer, the micro-average accuracy (total number of correct responses across all submitted answers divided by the total number of submitted answers), and the macro-average accuracy (mean of the 16 individual case accuracies).
resultsA total of 323 participants actively engaged in the two webinars (185 in the EpiCARE webinar and 138 in the ILAE e-Forum). Most respondents were specialist neurologists or pediatric neurologists/pediatricians. Before the teaching session, most respondents had heard about the updated classification but had not read the full position paper and practical guide. The main post-teaching poll was completed by 295 participants (91.3%). The vast majority of the respondents (242; 82%) rated the updated classification as feasible and useful, 17 (5.8%) as feasible but not useful, and 2 (0.7%) as not feasible, and 34 (11.5%) respondents stated they were unsure / had no opinion. In the case-based exercise on applying the updated classification, the most frequently selected answer was correct in all 16 cases. The micro-average accuracy was 74.3%, the macro-average accuracy 74.5%, and the median question-level accuracy 81.5% (range 30.4%-94.0%). SIGNIFICANCE: When neurologists and other professionals were surveyed after structured teaching, acceptance of the 2025 ILAE seizure classification was strongly favorable. These findings suggest that education is likely to influence how the update is perceived and may help explain part of the skepticism reported in earlier surveys conducted without a standardized teaching intervention.
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.