Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The natural history of epilepsy: an epidemiological view

Open access
Kwan, P·2004·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

Better information of the natural history of epilepsy has important implications for understanding the underlying neurobiology, evaluating treatment strategies, and planning healthcare resources. The traditional pessimistic view has been dispelled by results from modern community based prospective studies, showing that over 60% of newly diagnosed patients will enter remission upon treatment. Recent outcome studies suggest that medical intractability may be predicted after failure of two antiepileptic drugs. Poor prognostic factors include a high initial seizure density, symptomatic aetiology, and presence of structural cerebral abnormalities, all of which can be identified early on. Among patients who have entered remission, many will remain seizure-free after antiepileptic drug treatment is withdrawn, suggesting that the underlying seizure generating factor has remitted. Whether some of these patients have entered remission "spontaneously" is contentious because, with effective pharmacotherapy for epilepsy in use for over 100 years, the natural history of untreated epilepsy is largely unknown. Circumstantial evidence, mostly arising from resource poor countries where antiepileptic drug treatment is not readily available, indicates that spontaneous remission may occur in up to 30% of cases. Observations from these complementary sources suggest that, at the population level, prognosis of newly diagnosed epilepsy may be broadly categorised into three groups: remission without treatment, remission with treatment only, and persistent seizures despite treatment. As understanding of the prognostic factors improves, the potential of a "prognostic group specific" management approach should be explored so that effective treatments may be used in a more rational and targeted fashion.

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 · 10.1136/jnnp.2004.045690

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Kwan, P.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-10-01
Volume
75
Issue
10
Pages
1376-1381
ISSN
0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117388170
Cited by
407
References
1
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.