4.4 Article

The Expert Consensus Guideline Series Treatment of Epilepsy

期刊

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
卷 2, 期 6, 页码 A1-A50

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/ebeh.2001.0283

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past decade, many new epilepsy treatments have been approved in the United States, promising better quality of life for many with epilepsy. However, clinicians must now choose among a growing number of treatment options and possible combinations. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) form the basis for evidence-based decision making about best treatment options, but they rarely compare active therapies, making decisions difficult. When medical literature is lacking, expert opinion is helpful, but may contain potential biases. The expert consensus method is a new approach for statistically analyzing pooled opinion to minimize biases inherent in other systems of summarizing expert opinion. We used this method to analyze expert opinion on treatment of three epilepsy syndromes (idiopathic generalized epilepsy, symptomatic localization-related epilepsy, and symptomatic generalized epilepsy) and status epilepticus. For all three syndromes, the experts recommended the same general treatment strategy. As a first step, they recommend monotherapy. If this fails, a second monotherapy should be tried. Following this, the experts are split between additional trials of monotherapy and a combination of two therapies. If this fails, most agree the next step should be additional trials of two therapies, with less agreement as to the next best step after this. One exception to these recommendations is that the experts recommend an evaluation for epilepsy surgery after the third failed step for symptomatic localization-related epilepsies. The results of the expert survey were used to develop user-friendly treatment guidelines concerning overall treatment strategies and choice of specific medications for different syndromes and for status epilepticus. (C) 2001 Comprehensive NeuroScience, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据