Trial reportJournal of neurology2026
Improving emergency management of status epilepticus: a randomized high-fidelity simulator-based trial.
Trial report in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03883516 (Improving Emergency Management of Status Epilepticus - a High-fidelity Simulator-based Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this 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.
Improving Emergency Management of Status Epilepticus - a High-fidelity Simulator-based Randomized Controlled Trial
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
purposeEvaluating how different status epilepticus (SE) guideline formats affect physicians' management of SE in high-fidelity simulation. The primary objective was adherence to guideline-recommended diagnostic and treatment interventions; the secondary was guideline memorability. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted, randomizing physicians from various specialties at the University Hospital Basel, a Swiss academic care center into three groups: (1) without guidelines (controls), (2) with access to NCS guidelines, (3) provided with a condensed single-page guideline incorporating symbols to facilitate information assimilation and evaluation. Each group performed an identical simulated SE scenario. Primary endpoints included vital sign checks, therapeutic interventions, and timing. Secondary endpoints assessed questionnaire-based aftermath self-evaluation and guideline memorability.
resultsAmong 124 participating physicians, 35% were controls, 34% provided with NCS guideline, and 31% with the condensed single-page guideline. Participants using the condensed guideline showed higher adherence to key interventions, with significantly improved rates of side positioning for airway protection (63% with condensed guideline vs. 25% in controls and 26% in the full guideline group; p<0.001) and second-line antiseizure drug administration (97% vs. 70% and 86%; p=0.003). No significant differences were observed in vital sign checks or other interventions. The condensed guideline was rated as more memorable compared to the original guidelines (p=0.001).
conclusionsCondensed SE guidelines improved adherence to selected emergency interventions compared with both full NCS guidelines and no guideline support. Guideline usability may represent a modifiable target for improving time-critical neurological emergencies.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID NCT03883516 2019-03-12.
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.