ArticleEpilepsia2026
Stereo-electroencephalography-guided responsive neuromodulation: A propensity-matched cohort study.
Article 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal pre-implantation evaluation and surgical targeting strategies for responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in patients with unresectable, drug-resistant focal epilepsy continue to be debated. Although stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG) is central to characterizing the seizure-onset zone, its role in preoperative testing for neuromodulation remains undefined. We examined whether sEEG-guided targeting for RNS implantation confers seizure-reduction benefit compared with RNS implantation without sEEG.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent RNS implantation at our institution in 2015-2024. Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics and epilepsy characteristics to create balanced groups of patients with and without prior sEEG. The primary outcome measure was seizure reduction as a percent change from baseline frequency, determined using linear regression.
resultsOf 99 patients (median ± standard error [SE] follow-up 45.3 ± 2.9 months), 78 (79%) underwent sEEG monitoring before RNS implantation and 21 (21%) did not. Most patients (62%) had no prior interventions for epilepsy and had non-lesional epilepsy (75%). Mean seizure reduction at last follow-up was 72.4% ± 29.3%. There were 21 patients in each propensity-matched group. The use of preoperative sEEG was not associated with greater seizure reduction in the original (p = .835) and propensity score-matched cohorts (p = .914). In the unmatched cohort, female sex (β = 16.7, p = .006,) older age (β = .55, p = .027), thalamic RNS stimulation (β = 18.0, p = .030), and follow-up duration (β = .2, p = .029) were associated with greater seizure reduction on linear regression. Subgroup analyses among epilepsy subtypes (bitemporal, temporal, or extratemporal) found no statistically significant differences in seizure reduction. SIGNIFICANCE: In a climate of growing delays in epilepsy care, we did not observe differences in RNS efficacy with or without prior sEEG monitoring in patients with unilateral or bilateral temporal lobe epilepsy, temporal-plus epilepsy, and extratemporal epilepsy. Although prospective data are needed to investigate the relative benefit of preoperative sEEG use, these findings may help guide patient selection and optimize definitive surgical planning.
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.