SynthesisNeurology2026
Efficacy of Levetiracetam in Patients With Pediatric Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Neurology, 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesLevetiracetam (LEV) is widely used in pediatric epilepsies because of its favorable pharmacokinetics, ease of administration, and perceived tolerability. However, its comparative efficacy relative to established antiseizure medications (ASMs) in children remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate LEV efficacy in pediatric epilepsies and compare outcomes vs placebo and active comparators.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase (2000-6 August 2025) for RCTs enrolling patients 16 years or younger with epilepsy and reporting seizure freedom and/or ≥50% responder rate. Trials including both pediatric and adult patients were eligible if pediatric participants were represented. Comparisons included LEV vs placebo or active ASMs as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. Primary outcomes were seizure freedom and responder rate at the trial's primary endpoint or, if not specified, longest reported follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. We pooled risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs using random-effects models, stratified by comparator and epilepsy subtype.
resultsWe included 25 RCTs (4,070 participants): 23 contributed to pooled meta-analyses. Across 25 trials, the mean age ranged from 0.4 to 39.3 years, reflecting pediatric-only and mixed-age RCTs; 43.8% were female. In placebo/no-therapy-controlled trials (mainly add-on studies), LEV was associated with higher seizure freedom (RD 11.0%; 95% CI 5.3%-16.7%) and responder rates (RD 24.3%; 95% CI 19.1%-29.4%). In active-comparator-controlled trials (mainly monotherapy head-to-head studies), LEV showed no overall advantage vs active comparators for seizure freedom (RD -2.4%; 95% CI -5.6% to 0.7%) or responder rate (RD -7.4%; 95% CI -23.0% to 8.1%). Fourteen trials were at high risk of bias. Sensitivity analyses confirmed benefit vs placebo but showed significant disadvantage vs active comparators in low risk-of-bias trials. Findings in pediatric-only trials (16 RCTs; 1,380 participants) were consistent with the overall results. DISCUSSION: LEV confers benefit vs placebo, mostly as adjunctive therapy, but does not consistently outperform established ASMs in pediatric epilepsies and may be inferior in some subgroups when higher-quality evidence is considered. Limitations include substantial heterogeneity, frequent high risk of bias, variable follow-up durations, publication bias, and limited pediatric-only comparative data.
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.