Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 485

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epilepsy: Accuracy of Patient Seizure Counts

Hoppe, Christian, Poepel, Annkathrin, Elger, Christian E.·2007·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a daily patient reminder on seizure documentation accuracy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Monitoring unit of an academic department of epileptology. Patients Consecutive sample of 91 adult inpatients with focal epilepsies undergoing video-electroencephalographic monitoring. Intervention While all patients were asked to document seizures at the beginning of the monitoring period, patients from the experimental group were reminded each day to document seizures. Main Outcome Measure Documentation accuracy (percentage of documented seizures). RESULTS: A total of 582 partial seizures were recorded. Patients failed to document 55.5% of all recorded seizures, 73.2% of complex partial seizures, 26.2% of simple partial seizures, 41.7% of secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures, 85.8% of all seizures during sleeping, and 32.0% of all seizures during the awake state. The group medians of individual documentation accuracies for overall seizures, simple partial seizures, complex partial seizures, and secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures were 33.3%, 66.7%, 0%, and 83.3%, respectively. Neither the patient reminder nor cognitive performance affected documentation accuracy. A left-sided electroencephalographic focus or lesion, but not the site (frontal or temporal), contributed to documentation failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patient seizure counts do not provide valid information. Documentation failures result from postictal seizure unawareness, which cannot be avoided by reminders. Unchanged documentation accuracy is a prerequisite for the use of patient seizure counts in clinical trials and has to be demonstrated in a subsample of patients undergoing electroencephalographic monitoring.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.64.11.1595

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 485

Metadata

Authors
Hoppe, C., Poepel, A., & Elger, C. E.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2007-11-01
Volume
64
Issue
11
Pages
1595
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167309854
Cited by
485
References
12
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epilepsy: Accuracy of Patient Seizure Counts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.64.11.1595
The paper
Hoppe, C., Poepel, A., & Elger, C. E. (2007). Epilepsy: Accuracy of Patient Seizure Counts. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.64.11.1595

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.