ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2026
Optimizing the diagnostic timing for drug-resistant epilepsy: balancing timeliness and stability with an antiseizure medication waiting period.
Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is defined by the failure of two antiseizure medications (ASM), the optimal duration to confirm such resistance remains controversial. Clinical delays intended for treatment optimization may postpone life-changing nonpharmacological interventions and increase risks associated with uncontrolled seizures, highlighting the need for standardized diagnostic timing. Objective: We aimed to identify the optimal waiting period that balances the consistency, stability, and timeliness of DRE diagnosis. Design: Retrospective observational cohort study. Methods: This study evaluated a modified DRE definition featuring a structured "ASM waiting period" against the original criteria. Outpatients with epilepsy received initial ASM at a tertiary center in a self-paired diagnostic simulation design. A B-spline linear model verified the inflection point at which the DRE revision proportion plateaued. A trade-off score for DRE (TOS_DRE) was developed to identify the optimal waiting period by balancing diagnostic stability and delay. Results: This study included 1573 patients. We used 28-, 219-, and 364-days as waiting periods for the analyses. The diagnostic consistency with the original standard was high (κ ⩾ 0.879, Conclusion: We propose a 219-day waiting period to operationalize an "adequate trial" of DRE. This timeframe may inform DRE diagnosis and evaluation of nonpharmacological therapy.
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.