MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2092760367 · doi:10.1002/ebch.1921

Prophylactic drug management for febrile seizures in children (Review)

2013· review· en· W2092760367 sur OpenAlexaff
Martin Offringa, Richard Newton

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2013
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEpilepsy research and treatment
Établissements canadiensInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAntipyreticBlindingAdverse effectCochrane LibraryPlaceboMEDLINEPediatricsRandomized controlled trialFebrile seizureSystematic reviewPsychological interventionEpilepsyIntensive care medicineAnalgesicInternal medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2% to 4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%. Rapid-acting antiepileptics and antipyretics given during subsequent fever episodes have been used to avoid the adverse effects of continuous antiepileptic drugs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antiepileptic and antipyretic drugs used prophylactically to treat children with febrile seizures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011. Issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011); EMBASE (1966 to May 2011); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) (May 2011). No language restrictions were imposed. We also contacted researchers in the field to identify continuing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised patient allocation that compared the use of antiepileptic or antipyretic agents with each other, placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (RN and MO) independently applied pre-defined criteria to select trials for inclusion and extracted the pre-defined relevant data, recording methods for randomisation, blinding and exclusions. Outcomes assessed were seizure recurrence at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 months and at age 5 to 6 years in the intervention and non-intervention groups, and adverse medication effects. The presence of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six articles describing 26 randomised trials with 2740 randomised participants were included. Thirteen interventions of continuous or intermittent prophylaxis and their control treatments were analysed. Methodological quality was moderate to poor in most studies. We could not do a meta-analysis for eight of the 13 comparisons due to insufficient numbers of trials. No significant benefit for valproate, pyridoxine, intermittent phenobarbitone or ibuprofen versus placebo or no treatment was found; nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, acetominophen or placebo; nor for intermittent rectal diazepam versus intermittent valproate, nor phenobarbitone versus intermittent rectal diazepam. There was a significant reduction of recurrent febrile seizures with intermittent oral diazepam versus placebo with a relative risk (RR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94) at 24 months), RR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.89) at 48 months, with no benefit at 6, 12 or 72 months. Phenobarbitone versus placebo or no treatment reduced seizures at 6, 12 and 24 months but not at 18 or 72 month follow up (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84 at 6 months; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75 at 12 months; and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88 at 24 months). Intermittent rectal diazepam versus no treatment or placebo also reduced seizures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86 at 6 months; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87 at 12 months; RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.39 at 18 months; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71 at 36 months), with no benefit at 24 months. Intermittent clobazam compared to placebo at 6 months resulted in a RR of 0.09 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.30), an effect found against an extremely high (83.3%) recurrence rate in the controls and which is a result that needs replication. The recording of adverse effects was variable. Lower comprehension scores in phenobarbitone treated children were found in two studies. In general, adverse effects were recorded in up to some 30% of children in the phenobarbitone treated group and in up to 36% in benzodiazepine treated groups. Evidence of publication bias was found in the meta analyses of comparisons for phenobarbitone versus placebo (8 studies) at 12 months but not at 6 months (6 studies); and valproate versus placebo (4 studies) at 12 months; with too few studies to identify publication bias for the other comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No clinically important benefits for children with febrile seizures were found for intermittent oral diazepam, phenytoin, phenobarbitone, intermittent rectal diazepam, valproate, pyridoxine, intermittent phenobarbitone or intermittent ibuprofen, nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, acetominophen or placebo. Adverse effects were reported in up to 30% of children. Apparent benefit for clobazam treatment in one recent trial needs to be replicated to be judged reliable. Given the benign nature of recurrent febrile seizures, and the high prevalence of adverse effects of these drugs, parents and families should be supported with adequate contact details of medical services and information on recurrence, first aid management and, most importantly, the benign nature of the phenomenon.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,486
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

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 Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,365 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations24
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalMême sujetEpilepsy research and treatmentTravaux en français237 207