Search

Purpose: There is limited knowledge on the reliability of risk of bias (ROB) tools for assessing internal validity in systematic reviews of exposure and frequency studies. We aimed to identify and then compare the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of six commonly used tools for frequency (Loney scale, Gyorkos checklist, American Academy of Neurology [AAN] tool) and exposure (Newcastle-Ottawa scale, SIGN50 checklist, AAN tool) studies., Methods: Six raters independently assessed the ROB of 30 frequency and 30 exposure studies using the three respective ROB tools. Articles were rated as low, intermediate, or high ROB. We calculated an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each tool and category of ROB tool. We compared the IRR between ROB tools and tool type by inspection of overlapping ICC 95% CIs and by comparing their coefficients after transformation to Fisher's Z values. We assessed the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools by calculating an ICC for each rater in comparison with the original ratings from the AAN., Results: All individual ROB tools had an IRR in the substantial range or higher (ICC point estimates between 0.61 and 0.80). The IRR was almost perfect (ICC point estimate > 0.80) for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist. All tools were comparable in IRR, except for the AAN frequency tool which had a significantly higher ICC than the Gyorkos checklist (p = 0.021) and trended towards a higher ICC when compared to the Loney scale (p = 0.085). When examined by category of ROB tool, scales, and checklists had a substantial IRR, whereas the AAN tools had an almost perfect IRR. For the criterion validity of the AAN ROB tools, the average agreement between our raters and the original AAN ratings was moderate., Conclusion: All tools had substantial IRRs except for the AAN frequency tool and the SIGN50 checklist, which both had an almost perfect IRR. The AAN ROB tools were the only category of ROB tools to demonstrate an almost perfect IRR. This category of ROB tools had fewer and simpler criteria. Overall, parsimonious tools with clear instructions, such as those from the AAN, may provide more reliable ROB assessments., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Summarize the current evidence on efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis., Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards and searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their corresponding open-label extension studies, as well as prospective case series, with ≥20 participants (excluding studies limited to children). Our primary outcome was the mean (or median, when unavailable) percentage decrease in frequency, as compared to baseline, of all epileptic seizures at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of treatment responders and proportion with seizure freedom., Results: We identified 30 eligible studies, six of which were RCTs. At long-term follow-up (mean 1.3 years), five observational studies for VNS reported a pooled mean percentage decrease in seizure frequency of 34.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.1, 74.5). In the open-label extension studies for RNS, the median seizure reduction was 53%, 66%, and 75% at 2, 5, and 9 years of follow-up, respectively. For DBS, the median reduction was 56%, 65%, and 75% at 2, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The proportion of individuals with seizure freedom at last follow-up increased significantly over time for DBS and RNS, whereas a positive trend was observed for VNS. Quality of life was improved in all modalities. The most common complications included hoarseness, and cough and throat pain for VNS and implant site pain, headache, and dysesthesia for DBS and RNS., Significance: Neurostimulation modalities are an effective treatment option for drug-resistant epilepsy, with improving outcomes over time and few major complications. Seizure-reduction rates among the three therapies were similar during the initial blinded phase. Recent long-term follow-up studies are encouraging for RNS and DBS but are lacking for VNS., (© 2022 International League Against Epilepsy.)