MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3055663211 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.14643

What are the effects of ketogenic diets on drug‐resistant epilepsy? A Cochrane Review summary with commentary

2020· review· en· W3055663211 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sina Arman

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDiet and metabolism studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésKetogenic dietMedicineEpilepsyPlaceboPopulationRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectPediatricsPsychosocialInternal medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The aim of this commentary is to discuss from a rehabilitation perspective the published Cochrane Review ‘Ketogenic diets for drug-resistant epilepsy’ by Martin-McGill et al.,1 under the direct supervision of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. This Cochrane Corner is produced in agreement with Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology by Cochrane Rehabilitation. Epilepsy is a common but serious neurological condition.2 Antiseizure medication is the mainstay of treatment, but about 35% of patients remain refractory.3, 4 Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) leads to an increased risk of injuries, psychosocial dysfunction, poor quality of life, and premature death, calling for the search for alternative treatments. There has been mounting interest in the ketogenic diet (KD), with high fat, adequate protein, and low carbohydrate content, and its variants.1, 5, 6 Thus it is important to provide evidence-based data and identify potential adverse effects in children and adults with DRE. An update of a Cochrane Review,1 first published in 20037 and updated in 2018,8 looked at further evidence of KD effects in individuals with DRE.1 The aim of this Cochrane Review1 was to investigate the effect of KD for DRE by reviewing the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The population addressed in this review was children or adults with a diagnosis of DRE regardless of seizure type or epilepsy syndrome. The interventions studied were any diet-producing ketones including different types of KD (classical KD, medium-chain triglyceride [MCT] KD, modified Atkins diet [MAD], and low glycaemic index treatment). The comparators were placebo, usual, or sham diet known not to have any effect on epilepsy or any other antiseizure treatment or different types of KDs. The primary outcomes studied were seizure freedom (100% reduction in seizure frequency), seizure reduction (≥50% reduction), and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were cognitive, behavioural, quality of life, and attrition rate. The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 29th April 2019. The review included 13 RCTs (n=932): 10 studies of 711 children, and three of 221 adults. Only two additional studies met the inclusion criteria for the last update. The review shows that: The authors concluded that, although the overall quality of the evidence was low or very low due to risk of bias and imprecision in the limited number of studies resulting from small sample sizes, the use of KDs in epilepsy was promising, particularly in children. But there is uncertainty as to their favourable effects in adults. KD variants such as MAD may have a similar effect on seizure control as the classical KD and MAD can be assumed to have fewer adverse events. The attrition rate remained a problem in all KD variants due to the lack of observed efficacy on seizures and dietary tolerance. The authors stated that KD is a valid option in people with medically intractable epilepsy or those who are not suitable for surgical intervention. They emphasized the need for further research. According to the results of this review,1 KDs may be helpful in promoting seizure freedom and seizure reduction, especially in children. The proportions for these outcomes were the highest with 4:1 KD in children, 55% and 85% respectively, at a 3-month follow-up; however, with more adverse events in most of the studies. MAD achieved seizure freedom and reduction in up to 25% and 60% respectively. According to one study, KDs might be helpful even for children younger than 2 years, with classical KD being potentially more effective than MAD. The KDs have few side effects, mostly vomiting, constipation, and diarrhoea, not leading to significant withdrawals in children, in contrast with adults. KDs may have some positive effects such as an increase in activity or productivity levels and a decrease in anxiousness in children, which needs further investigation due to inadequacy of evidence to inform clinical practice. Nevertheless, the potentially favourable effects of KDs on daily activity is of importance given the poor adherence of individuals with epilepsy9 to physical activity guidelines for children and young people affected by epilepsy.10 In adults with DRE, the effects of KDs are understudied and less clear. However, it should be emphasized that the level of evidence suggesting the above results is of low or very low quality due to different reasons, so doubts remain as to whether KDs improve the studied outcomes (https://www.cochrane.no/sites/cochrane.no/files/public/uploads/how_to_write_a_cochrane_pls_12th_february_2019.pdf). Therefore, the current Cochrane evidence1 urges future research for more conclusive evidence on the efficacy of KDs in epilepsy. From a rehabilitation point of view, it would be more appropriate to consider the use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health categories, particularly those relevant to epilepsy,11 such as emotional functions and sensation of pain (in addition to cognitive and mobility functions), since these were not studied in any of the trials included in the review. More research is also needed to extend the results in practice, especially in adults. The author thanks Cochrane Rehabilitation and Cochrane Epilepsy Group for reviewing the contents of this Cochrane Corner. The author has stated that they had no interests that could be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.

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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,044
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,006
Bibliométrie0,0060,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,001

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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · 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'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

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetDiet and metabolism studiesTravaux en français237 207