Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 790

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ILAE Treatment Guidelines: Evidence‐based Analysis of Antiepileptic Drug Efficacy and Effectiveness as Initial Monotherapy for Epileptic Seizures and Syndromes

Glauser, Tracy, Ben‐Menachem, Elinor, Bourgeois, Blaise, Cnaan, Avital, Chadwick, David, Guerreiro, Carlos, Kalviainen, Reetta, Mattson, Richard, Perucca, Emilio, Tomson, Torbjorn·2006·Epilepsia

Abstract

Summary: Purpose:To assess which antiepileptic medications (AEDs) have the best evidence for long‐term efficacy or effectiveness as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. Methods:A 10‐member subcommission of the Commission on Therapeutic Strategies of The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), including adult and pediatric epileptologists, clinical pharmacologists, clinical trialists, and a statistician evaluated available evidence found through a structured literature review including MEDLINE,Current Contents and the Cochrane Library for all applicable articles from 1940 until July 2005. Articles dealing with different seizure types (for different age groups) and two epilepsy syndromes were assessed for quality of evidence (four classes) based on predefined criteria. Criteria for class I classification were a double‐blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, ≥48‐week treatment duration without forced exit criteria, information on ≥24‐week seizure freedom data (efficacy) or ≥48‐week retention data (effectiveness), demonstration of superiority or 80% power to detect a ≤20% relative difference in efficacy/effectiveness versus an adequate comparator, and appropriate statistical analysis. Class II studies met all class I criteria except for having either treatment duration of 24 to 47 weeks or, for noninferiority analysis, a power to only exclude a 21–30% relative difference. Class III studies included other randomized double‐blind and open‐label trials, and class IV included other forms of evidence (e.g., expert opinion, case reports). Quality of clinical trial evidence was used to determine the strength of the level of recommendation. Results:A total of 50 RCTs and seven meta‐analyses contributed to the analysis. Only four RCTs had class I evidence, whereas two had class II evidence; the remainder were evaluated as class III evidence. Three seizure types had AEDs with level A or level B efficacy and effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy: adults with partial‐onset seizures (level A, carbamazepine and phenytoin; level B, valproic acid), children with partial‐onset seizures (level A, oxcarbazepine; level B, None), and elderly adults with partial‐onset seizures (level A, gabapentin and lamotrigine; level B, None). One adult seizure type [adults with generalized‐onset tonic–clonic (GTC) seizures], two pediatric seizure types (GTC seizures and absence seizures), and two epilepsy syndromes (benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy) had no AEDs with level A or level B efficacy and effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy. Conclusions:This evidence‐based guideline focused on AED efficacy or effectiveness as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. The absence of rigorous comprehensive adverse effects data makes it impossible to develop an evidence‐based guideline aimed at identifying the overall optimal recommended initial‐monotherapy AED. There is an especially alarming lack of well‐designed, properly conducted RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and for children in general. The majority of relevant existing RCTs have significant methodologic problems that limit their applicability to this guideline's clinically relevant main question. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze future clinically relevant RCTs that can answer the many outstanding questions identified in this guideline. The ultimate choice of an AED for any individual patient with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy should include consideration of the strength of the efficacy and effectiveness evidence for each AED along with other variables such as the AED safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, formulations, and expense. When selecting a patient's AED, physicians and patients should consider all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness.

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 · 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00585.x

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 790

Metadata

Authors
Glauser, T., Ben‐Menachem, E., Bourgeois, B., Cnaan, A., Chadwick, D., Guerreiro, C., Kalviainen, R., Mattson, R., Perucca, E., & Tomson, T.
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-07
Volume
47
Issue
7
Pages
1094-1120
ISSN
  • 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1167
OpenAlex
W2058147010
Cited by
790
References
3
FWCI
28.55
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: ILAE Treatment Guidelines: Evidence‐based Analysis of Antiepileptic Drug Efficacy and Effectiveness as Initial Monotherapy for Epileptic Seizures and Syndromes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00585.x
The paper
Glauser, T., Ben‐Menachem, E., Bourgeois, B., Cnaan, A., Chadwick, D., Guerreiro, C., Kalviainen, R., Mattson, R., Perucca, E., & Tomson, T. (2006). ILAE Treatment Guidelines: Evidence‐based Analysis of Antiepileptic Drug Efficacy and Effectiveness as Initial Monotherapy for Epileptic Seizures and Syndromes. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00585.x

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.