MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsy Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNeurocrine Biosciences
KeywordsObservational studySystematic reviewMedicineCritical appraisalRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionPsychiatryPediatricsEpilepsyClinical study designStatus epilepticusMEDLINEClinical trialInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsy ResearchSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207