Diagnostic testing in nontrauma patients presenting to the emergency department with recurrent seizures: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus regarding the role of investigations among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with recurrent seizures. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the frequency and utility of commonly requested investigations for nontrauma patients presenting to the ED with recurrent seizures. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched (March 2021) for articles on this topic using search terms related to recurrent seizures, investigations, and the ED. The inclusion criteria required that articles include adult nontrauma patients presenting to the ED. Studies exclusively investigating first-episode seizures, trauma patients, and status epilepticus were excluded. Eligible studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results of studies were presented using proportions. RESULTS: There were six cohort studies included that contributed data from 36,595 patients. All six studies assessed at least one of our primary outcomes for computed tomography (CT) brain scans. The proportion of patients who underwent a head CT ranged from 13% to 42%. The rates of abnormal head CT findings ranged from 8% to 21%. One study reported on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and found it used infrequently in 0.79% of cases. The proportion and yield of nonneuroimaging investigations were not well evaluated in this patient population. Only one study reported on the utility of sodium levels or blood glucose results for this population and reported abnormalities in sodium levels for 19% of patients and abnormalities in glucose levels in 50% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, CT brain scans appeared to be performed uncommonly but with moderate rates of abnormal findings. In the absence of prolonged alteration of consciousness, a history of brain tumor, or positive neurologic findings, however, neuroimaging was of low yield. Given the heterogeneity and potential limitations of these studies, further research on this topic is required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".