MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389490343 · doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2023.107278

Unmet needs in epileptic encephalopathy with spike-and-wave activation in sleep: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4389490343 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Chapman, Dietrich Haubenberger, Eric Jen, Athena Tishchenko, Trung Nguyen, Carolyn McMicken

Notice bibliographique

RevueEpilepsy Research · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEpilepsy research and treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNeurocrine Biosciences
Mots-clésObservational studySystematic reviewMedicineCritical appraisalRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionPsychiatryPediatricsEpilepsyClinical study designStatus epilepticusMEDLINEClinical trialInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike-and-wave activation in sleep (D/EE-SWAS), also referred to as electrical status epilepticus during sleep (ESES) or epileptic encephalopathy with continuous spike-and-wave during sleep (CSWS or EE-CSWS), is a spectrum of rare childhood epileptic encephalopathies that can lead to long-term cognitive impairment. Despite the importance of early diagnosis and intervention for D/EE-SWAS, there is a paucity of well-controlled clinical trial data to inform treatment, and no approved treatments are available. To assess correlations between diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in D/EE-SWAS, we carried out a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: In August 2020, we conducted comprehensive database searches using search terms including "electrical status epilepticus," "ESES," "CSWS," and "Landau-Kleffner syndrome." Two or more independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for those that met the following criteria: prospective studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] or open-label trials), retrospective studies (drug evaluations or observational studies/chart reviews), and case series with ≥ 10 participants. Both interventional and non-interventional studies were included (i.e., drug intervention was not an inclusion criterion). Articles published before 2012, review articles, animal studies, and studies of surgical or dietary interventions were excluded. Standardized data extraction templates were used to capture data on study design, patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes from each of the selected publications. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for retrospective, observational studies. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies were included for full data extraction, most of which were uncontrolled and observational. Interpretation of study outcomes was limited by small study populations, variability in inclusion criteria, and inconsistency in methods of assessment and reporting of outcomes, which resulted in large heterogeneity in patients and their presenting symptoms. Despite these limitations, some patterns could be discerned. Several studies found that longer duration of ESES and younger age at onset were correlated with more severe language and cognitive deficits. In addition, several studies reported an association between improvement in cognitive outcomes and reduction in electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities and/or seizure frequency. In the 16 prospective or retrospective studies that evaluated drug treatments (e.g., antiseizure medications, corticosteroids, and high-dose diazepam), there was some improvement in EEG, seizure, and/or cognitive outcomes, although the specific outcomes and rates of improvement reported varied from study to study. CONCLUSION: Long-term cognitive deficits remain common in D/EE-SWAS, and data gaps exist in the literature that preclude an evidence-based approach to managing this complex epilepsy indication. Early intervention with more effective medications is needed to optimize long-term outcomes. Sufficiently powered, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials with standardized methods and predefined primary and secondary outcomes are needed.

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)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 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 enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,000
Bibliométrie0,0050,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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 Opus0,188
Tête enseignante GPT0,441
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations10
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEpilepsy ResearchMême sujetEpilepsy research and treatmentTravaux en français237 207