Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 501

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Combined analysis of risk factors for SUDEP: Combined SUDEP Analysis

Hesdorffer, Dale C., Tomson, Torbjorn, Benn, Emma, Sander, Josemir W., Nilsson, Lena, Langan, Yvonne, Walczak, Thaddeus S., Beghi, Ettore, Brodie, Martin J., Hauser, Allen, for the ILAE Commission on Epidemiology; Subcommission on Mortality·2011·Epilepsia

Abstract

PURPOSE: To pool data from four published case-control studies of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) with live controls, to increase the power to determine risk factors. METHODS: Case-control studies from the United States, Sweden, Scotland, and England were combined. SUDEP was defined as (1) a history of epilepsy (>1 epileptic seizure during a period of < 5 years); (2) death occurring suddenly; (3) death unexpected (i.e., no life-threatening illness); and (4) death remained unexplained after all investigative efforts, including autopsy. Definite SUDEP required all criteria. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for study. Further analysis simultaneously adjusted for study, age at death, gender, and duration of epilepsy. KEY FINDINGS: Of the risk factors that could be analyzed across some or all studies, those that were statistically significant were increased frequency of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), use of polytherapy, duration of epilepsy, young age at onset, gender, symptomatic etiology, and lamotrigine therapy. Results persisted when epilepsy onset was younger than 16 years and when it was 16 years or older. In univariate analysis, lamotrigine therapy was associated with significantly increased risk for SUDEP among individuals with idiopathic generalized epilepsy. SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis refines the identification of people with epilepsy that are at particular risk of SUDEP. The emerging profile indicates that people with early onset refractory symptomatic epilepsy with frequent GTCS and antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy are at higher risk. The results suggest that reduction of the number of GTCS is a priority, of more importance than reducing the number of AEDs. The role of AEDs and other treatment should be analyzed further in future studies.

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.1528-1167.2010.02952.x

Cites

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 501

Metadata

Authors
Hesdorffer, D. C., Tomson, T., Benn, E., Sander, J. W., Nilsson, L., Langan, Y., Walczak, T. S., Beghi, E., Brodie, M. J., Hauser, A., & for the ILAE Commission on Epidemiology; Subcommission on Mortality
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-28
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
1150-1159
ISSN
0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1524327358
Cited by
501
References
0
FWCI
19.90
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: Combined analysis of risk factors for SUDEP: Combined SUDEP Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02952.x
The paper
Hesdorffer, D. C., Tomson, T., Benn, E., Sander, J. W., Nilsson, L., Langan, Y., Walczak, T. S., Beghi, E., Brodie, M. J., Hauser, A., & for the ILAE Commission on Epidemiology; Subcommission on Mortality. (2011). Combined analysis of risk factors for SUDEP: Combined SUDEP Analysis. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02952.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.