MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769173672 · doi:10.1002/epi4.12092

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of drug‐resistant epilepsy: A systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis of real‐world evidence

2017· review· en· W2769173672 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalSickKids FoundationCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisTranscranial magnetic stimulationConfidence intervalMedicineEpilepsyRandomized controlled trialPublication biasInternal medicinePsychologyStimulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence for the use of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and clinicaltrials.gov for all relevant articles. Relevant patient and stimulation predictors as well as seizure outcomes were assessed. For studies with and without individual participant data (IPD), the primary outcomes were the rate of "favorable response" (reduction in seizure frequency ≥50%) and pooled event rate of mean reduction in seizure frequency, respectively. Outcomes were assessed with comparative statistics and random-effects meta-analysis models. Results: Of 3,477 identified articles, 12 met eligibility and were included in this review. We were able to obtain IPD for 5 articles constituting 34 participants. Univariate analysis on IPD identified greater favorable response event rates between participants with temporal seizure focus versus extratemporal (50% vs. 14%, p = 0.045) and between participants who were stimulated with a figure-8 coil versus other types (47% vs. 0%, p = 0.01). We also performed study-level meta-analysis on the remaining 7 studies without IPD, which included 212 participants. The pooled mean event rate of 50% seizure reduction using low-frequency rTMS was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12-57%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that studies with a mean age ≤21 years and studies using targeted stimulation had the highest seizure reduction rates compared to studies with a mean age >21 years (69% vs. 18%) and not using a targeted stimulation (47% vs. 14-20%). Moreover, we identified high interstudy heterogeneity, moderate study bias, and high publication bias. Significance: Real-world evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS using a figure-8 coil may be an effective therapy for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in pediatric patients. This meta-analysis can inform the design and expedite recruitment of a subsequent randomized clinical trial.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.649
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it