Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Following Surgical Treatment for Refractory Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgery for refractory epilepsy is widely used but the efficacy of this treatment for providing a seizure-free outcome and better quality of life remains unclear.This study aimed to update current evidence and to evaluate the effects of surgery on quality of life in patients with refractory epilepsy.A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature were conducted and selected studies included 2 groups of refractory epilepsy patients, surgical and nonsurgical.The studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was the seizure-free rate. The secondary outcome was quality of life. Adverse events were also reviewed.After screening, a total of 20 studies were selected: 8 were interventional, including 2 randomized controlled trials, and 12 were observational. All of the studies comprised 1959 patients with refractory epilepsy. The seizure-free rates were significantly higher for patients who received surgery compared with the patients who did not; the combined odds ratio was 19.35 (95% CI = 12.10-30.95, P < 0.001). After adjusting for publication bias the combined odds ratio was 10.25 (95% CI = 5.84-18.00). In both the interventional and observational studies, patients treated surgically had a significantly better quality of life compared with the patients not treated surgically. Complications were listed in 3 studies and the rates were similar in surgical and nonsurgical patients.Our meta-analysis found that for patients with refractory epilepsy, surgical treatment appears to provide a much greater likelihood of seizure-free outcome than nonsurgical treatment, although there is a need for more studies, particularly randomized studies, to confirm this conclusion. Based on more limited data, surgical treatment also appeared to provide a better quality of life and did not seem to increase complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".