Evidence Hub

A historical cohort of temporal lobe surgery for medically refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide future nonrandomized controlled trial studies

Anthony T. Lee, J. Burke, P. Chunduru, A. Molinaro, R. Knowlton, E. Chang

Journal of Neurosurgery, 2020

1,849 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Recent trials for temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) highlight the challenges of investigating surgical outcomes using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although several reviews have examined seizure-freedom outcomes from existing data, there is a need for an overall seizure-freedom rate estimated from level I data as investigators consider other methods besides RCTs to study outcomes related to new surgical interventions.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the 3 RCTs of TLE in adults and report an overall surgical seizure-freedom rate (Engel class I) composed of level I data. An overall seizure-freedom rate was also collected from level II data (prospective cohort studies) for validation. Eligible studies were identified by filtering a published Cochrane meta-analysis of epilepsy surgery for RCTs and prospective studies, and supplemented by searching indexed terms in MEDLINE (January 1, 2012-April 1, 2018). Retrospective studies were excluded to minimize heterogeneity in patient selection and reporting bias. Data extraction was independently reverified and pooled using a fixed-effects model. The primary outcome was overall seizure freedom following surgery. The historical benchmark was applied in a noninferiority study design to compare its power to a single-study cohort.

RESULTS

The overall rate of seizure freedom from level I data was 72.4% (55/76 patients, 3 RCTs), which was nearly identical to the overall seizure-freedom rate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,849 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free