ILAE Commission Report: Evaluations and Awards at the 4th European Congress of Epileptology, Florence, 7–12 October 2000

As part of the initiatives to improve the quality of European Epilepsy Congresses, the European Epilepsy Academy (EUREPA) and the Commission of European Affairs (CEA) jointly decided to set up a special program to evaluate the quality of individual presentations and the scientific program as a whole. This work is carried out in collaboration with individual European International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) chapters. The purposes of the evaluation are manifold: (a) to provide delegates with feedback on how their presentation was rated by their peers; (b) to give contributors constructive suggestions on how to improve their work and future presentations; and (c) to provide organizers of future congresses crucial information for the choice of themes, speakers, and overall program structure. The first round of evaluations took place on an experimental basis at the 4th European Congress of Epileptology in Florence. Part of the evaluations were carried out by soliciting, through standardized forms, feedback from audiences attending Main Theme Sessions and Satellite Symposia. Overall, sessions were rated favorably by attending delegates: on a 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) rating; main program sessions received a median score of 4. The median score for each of the five Satellite Symposia was also 4, with overall no more than eight individual delegates giving a 1 (poor) score. In their evaluation of Satellites, however, many delegates felt that the program or part of the presentations had an excessive promotional emphasis. The educational seminars provided by EUREPA were evaluated by using a more complex rating scale of six aspects of every lecture. Again, the median rating was “good,” and the handouts provided were considered particularly useful. Individual contributions, including invited lectures, free oral communications, and poster presentations, also were evaluated on standardized forms by “expert” panels, each panel consisting of three to four members selected in collaboration with European ILAE chapters. To ensure consistency in the rating process, each evaluator participated in briefing sessions in which the goals and procedures to be followed were explained and discussed. Additional forms were used to obtain feedback from each presenter about the perceived fairness and usefulness of the whole exercise. A total of 25 panels, involving 87 members from 24 different countries, participated in the evaluation. Of the 900 presentations made at the Congress, 722 (80%) were actually evaluated. Based on a 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) rating, overall median scores were 4 for invited lectures in the main program, 3 for free oral communications, and 4 for posters. Of the 722 presentations, 99 (14%) received more than two concomitant “unsatisfactory” ratings for aspects related to clarity of presentation and/or scientific content. Special panels were also set up to select winners of EUREPA awards to acknowledge excellence in science and presentation. The following is a list of the winners for each of the awards: Dr. Stephanie Baulac, Paris, France (coauthors: A. Escayg, B. Moulard, I. An-Gourfinkel, T. B. MacDonald, G. Uberfeld, D. Chaigne, C. Buresi, A. Brice, A. Malafosse, M. H. Meisler, and E. LeGuern), for the presentation “Two mutations in the sodium channel α-1 subunit gene are associated with GEFS+ type 2.” Motivation: These results, presented clearly and effectively, represent a major original contribution to the understanding of the pathogenesis of inherited epilepsies and open new perspectives in the neurobiology of epilepsies as channelopathies. Dr. G. J. Sills, Glasgow, Scotland (coauthors: P. N. Patsalos, S. Santangeli, E. Butler, G. Forrest, N. Ratnaraj, and M. J. Brodie), for the presentation “Visual field constriction with GABAergic antiepileptic drugs: A preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic investigation.” Motivation: This work suggests that accumulation of vigabatrin (VGB) in the retina, with or without the associated increase in γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels, may be responsible for the occurrence of visual field defects. Although this was not a clinical study, the need to bridge preclinical pharmacology with clinical observation is in the spirit of the late Dr. Gram, who in his Ph.D. thesis had also worked with VGB in these settings. Dr. J. P. S. Cunha, Aveiro, Portugal (co-authors: Z. J. Li and A. Martins Da Silva) for the presentation “Movement quantification in epileptic seizures: A new approach to video-EEG analysis.” Motivation: A highly original application of sophisticated digital technology to an interesting clinical problem. This technique has many possibilities for objective seizure description, possibly distinguishing epileptic from non-epileptic convulsive movements, and wire-free seizure detection. Dr. S. Furtinger, Vienna, Austria (coauthors: G. Sperk, S. Kandlhofer, T. Czech, and C. Baumgartner) for the presentation “Changes in neuropeptide Y and its receptors in the hippocampus of patients with mesial temporal sclerosis.” Motivation: This work used human epileptogenic tissue removed at therapeutic intervention to verify the clinical relevance of findings from animal experiments. The method included postmortem controls from neurologically normal persons, and the results are of potential relevance in the area of neuroprotection. The study stands out for its design, clear presentation, and interest of the results. J. Arends, Kempenhaege, The Netherlands (coauthors: W. Van Hooff, E. Veltman, and O. Van Nieuwenhuizen) for the presentation “Presurgical decision analysis in temporal lobe epilepsy: The value of clinical, EEG and MRI data.” Motivation: The authors constructed a presurgical decision model based on evidence from available literature and validated it retrospectively in a group of 18 patients. The model is promising to determine which patients with temporal lobe epilepsy need more sophisticated and costly presurgical evaluations, such as elaborate video-EEG monitoring and PET. Dr. I. Bielen, Zagreb, Croatia (coauthors: D. Sepic-Grahovac, V. Duerrigl, S. Hajnaek, P. Krmpoti, and S. Lonar) for presentation “Quality of life in persons with epilepsy in Croatia.” Motivation: This study analyzed aspects of quality of life in 270 patients. Results were validated through use of well-matched controls, and the quality of presentation was excellent. Dr. M. Nieto Barrera, Seville, Spain (coauthors: R. Candau, J. Rodriguez Barrionuevo, J. Fornell, M. D. Lluch Fernandez, and R. Camino) for the presentation “Observational study of topiramate as adjunctive therapy in severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy.” Motivation: A well-presented pilot therapeutic investigation. The authors' efforts to select a population well defined syndromically must be commended. Dr. C. Uhlmann, Ulm, Germany (coauthor: W. Froescher) for the presentation “Dependence on antiepileptic drugs: Is it common in patients with epilepsy?” Motivation: The question whether people become dependent on antiepileptic drugs comes up frequently in discussion with patients, and often we are asked if this does happen. This well-organized and well-presented contribution addresses the issue in an original way and sets the scene for further work in this area. Dr. N. H. Walton, Bristol, England (coauthor: M. P. Bunnage) for the presentation “Material-specific memory performances during the intracarotid amobarbital procedure.” Motivation: The study has an interesting rationale, used adequate methods, and arrived at pertinent conclusions. Based on feedback forms that delegates were requested to return, the evaluations were considered to be constructive and helpful to improve future contributions. Most delegates suggested that these evaluations should continue in the future. An earlier version of this report was published in the EUREPA Information Bulletin No. 8, May 2001. Acknowledgment: The Commission on European Affairs and the European Epilepsy Academy are gratefully acknowledged for their support and suggestions. Warm thanks for their help and dedication also are due to the following colleagues who participated in the evaluation process: U. Aguglia (Italy), A. Aldenkamp (The Netherlands), S. Arroyo (Spain), A. Arzimanoglu (France), G. Avanzini (Italy), M. Avoli (Canada), D. Battino (Italy), M. Baldy-Moulinier (France), M. Baulac (France), C. Baumgartner (Austria), A. Beaumanoir (Switzerland), H. Beck (Germany), E. Beghi (Italy), T. Betts (U.K.), C. D. Binnie (U.K.), P. Boon (Belgium), L. A. Bulakhova (Ukraine), M. P. Canevini (Italy), D. W. Chadwick (U.K.), C. M. Cornaggia (Italy), S. Czuczwar (Poland), M. Dam (Denmark), V. Darbinyan (Armenia), B. Dalla Bernardina (Italy), A. Dervent (Turkey), C. Dravet (France), E. Eskazan (Turkey), E. Fontana (Italy), S. Francione (Italy), P. Genton (France), A. Gil-Nagel (Spain), P. Gobbi (Italy), A. Guekht (Russia), R. Guerrini (U.K.), E. Gusev (Austria), P. Halasz (Hungary), P. Jallon (Switzerland), D. Janz (Germany), S. I. Johannessen (Norway), P. Kahane (France), R. Kalviainen (Finland), D. Kastelejn-Nolst Trenité (The Netherlands), V. Komarek (Czech Republic), K. Kostyuk (Ukraine), G. Kraemer (Switzerland), G. Luef (Austria), R. Mai (Italy), J. Majkowski (Poland), K. Malmgren (Sweden), Z. J. Martinovic (Yugoslavia), G. Maryek (Ukraine), Th. Mayer (Germany), R. Michelucci (Italy), J. Mifsud (Malta), L. E. Mouzichouk (Ukraine), K. Niedzielska (Poland), M. Nikanorova (Russia), C. Ozkara (Turkey), P. Patsalos (U.K.), B. Pedersen (Denmark), F. Pisani (Italy), A. Pitkanen (Finland), W. Renier (The Netherlands), P. Ritva (France). T. Salmenpera (Finland), J. W. A. S. Sander (U.K.), S. Saygi (Turkey), B. Schmitz (Germany), A. Schulze-Bonhage (Germany), W. Serles (Austria), J. M. Serratosa (Spain), L. Specchio (Italy), H. Stefan (Germany), S. Sundqvist (Sweden), A. Tartara (Italy), L. Tassi (Italy), P. Tinuper (Italy), T. Tomson (Sweden), A. Vezzani (Italy), F. Vigevano (Italy), C. Viteri (Spain), W. J. Wadman (The Netherlands), J. Wendorff (Poland), H. G. Wieser (Switzerland), P. Wolf (Germany), Y. Yaari (Israel), G. Zaccara (Italy). Thanks are also due to all delegates who provided feedback and suggestions. Valentina Gnoato and Maura Stella are gratefully acknowledged for their invaluable assistance in coordinating the evaluation procedures and in processing the data.

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.