MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2007598716 · doi:10.1111/epi.12798

<scp>SUDEP</scp>'s health burden and when to talk about it

2014· editorial· en· W2007598716 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary W. Mathern, Astrid Nehlig, Dale C. Hesdorffer

Notice bibliographique

RevueEpilepsia · 2014
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEpilepsy research and treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInquestCoronerEpilepsyMedicineIncidence (geometry)PsychiatryPediatricsFamily medicineMedical emergencyInjury preventionPoison controlHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sudden unexpected death from epilepsy (SUDEP) has attracted considerable attention in the past several years, and there is increasing pressure from the epilepsy community to encourage medical professionals to tell their patients about it. Websites have sprung up to provide information about SUDEP, including the Epilepsy Foundation's SUDEP Institute, Canada's SUDEP Aware, the United Kingdom's SUDEP Action, and Epilepsy Australia. These organizations also work with the bereaved. In a Scottish coroner's inquest after the SUDEP deaths of two girls, a recommendation was made that “The vast majority of patients with epilepsy, or their parents or carers where appropriate, should be advised of the risk of SUDEP on first diagnosis or if in the particular circumstances of that patient, there are exceptional circumstances for delaying immediate provision of the information, then within a very short time thereafter.”1 How are we doing with our understanding of the risk and burden of SUDEP and when it is discussed with patients and families? In this edition of Epilepsia, we have a string of articles and commentaries on this subject. We start with a systematic review of SUDEP and its public health burden by Thurman et al.2 In their analysis the estimated annual incidence was 1.16 per 1,000 patients, with most SUDEP deaths reported in the third and fourth decades of life. The authors further calculated that 100,510 years of patient's life are lost from SUDEP for people living up to age 75 years. Lost years of life from SUDEP was second only to stroke among other neurologic diseases. These are staggering statistics that should be emphasized to public health officials and policymakers. We next turn to the question of when patients learn about SUDEP. Kroner et al.3 address the question of whether caregivers or patients with epilepsy know about SUDEP and what factors are associated with knowing. Data from an Internet survey and a clinic-based survey show that 71% of Internet responders knew about SUDEP compared to 38.8% of clinic responders. Better educational attainment of caregiver responders accounted for this difference. Prior knowledge of SUDEP was related to more severe epilepsy of longer duration and provision of care by an epileptologist. Patients with epilepsy and caregivers from both surveys wanted their doctor to discuss SUDEP with them, even though they experienced fear, anxiety, and sadness when this information was imparted. This conversation continues in two accompanying articles. Stevenson and Stanton4 describe their profound sorrow of learning about SUDEP after a child has died and the helplessness and anger at not being told so that they could more carefully plan needed care. This led the Stanton family to form the Danny Did Foundation, which was featured in My Epilepsy Story. This message is echoed by the voices of other bereaved parents who took part in SUDEP: Continuing the Global Conversation. Many had never heard about SUDEP and lost their children. Following up on the conversation between doctors, patients, and families, Donner and Buchhalter5 provide a clear and practical guide to discussing SUDEP with patients and caregivers in their Commentary, and they stress that these conversations strengthen the trust between the doctor, the patient, and the family. As part of this series, we invite readers to participate in a poll on the subject. Please go to http://surveys.verticalresponse.com/a/show/1539433/a6bed9de39/0 and provide your answers to the following questions. Results will be published in later editions of Epilepsia. Should readers have added ideas or thoughts on the subject of SUDEP and when to talk about it, please contact us at Epilepsia@epilepsia.com. In your opinion, when in the discussion with a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy should the possibility of SUDEP be discussed? As a provider, how often do you discuss SUDEP with the following patients or their families? (responses will be: always, most of the time, some of the time, never): Gary Mathern, Epilepsia Co-Editor in Chief Astrid Nehlig, Epilepsia Co-Editor in Chief Dale C. Hesdorffer, Epilepsia Associate Editor

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,122
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,408

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1220,023

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEpilepsiaMême sujetEpilepsy research and treatmentTravaux en français237 207