The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Standard magnetic resonance imaging is inadequate for patients with refractory focal epilepsy
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with intractable epilepsy may benefit from epilepsy surgery especially if they have a radiologically demonstrable cerebral lesion. Dedicated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols as performed at epilepsy surgery centres can detect epileptogenic abnormalities with great sensitivity and specificity. However, many patients with epilepsy are investigated with standard MRI sequences by radiologist outside epilepsy centres ("non-experts"). This study was undertaken to compare standard MRI and epilepsy specific MRI findings in patients with focal epilepsy. METHODS: Comparison of results of standard MRI reported by "non-expert" radiologists, standard MRI evaluated by epilepsy "expert" radiologists, and epilepsy specific MRI read by "expert" radiologists in 123 consecutive patients undergoing epilepsy surgery evaluation between 1996 and 1999. Validation of radiological findings by correlation with postoperative histological examination. RESULTS: Sensitivity of "non-expert" reports of standard MRI reports for focal lesions was 39%, of "expert" reports of standard MRI 50%, and of epilepsy dedicated MRI 91%. Dedicated MRI showed focal lesions in 85% of patients with "non-lesional" standard MRI. The technical quality of standard MRI improved during the study period, but "non-expert" reporting did not. In particular, hippocampal sclerosis was missed in 86% of cases. Neuropathological diagnoses (n=90) were predicted correctly in 22% of "non-expert" standard MRI reports but by 89% of dedicated MRI reports. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MRI failed to detect 57% of focal epileptogenic lesions. Patients without MRI lesion are less likely to be considered candidates for epilepsy surgery. Patients with refractory epilepsy should be referred to an MRI unit with epileptological experience at an early point.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Early Identification of Refractory Epilepsy
Kwan, P., & Brodie, M. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200002033420503 · Cited by 5,204
The stigma of epilepsy: a European perspective
Baker, G. A., Brooks, J., Buck, D., & Jacoby, A. (2000) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.2000.tb01512.x · Cited by 357
Cited by
Brain imaging in the assessment for epilepsy surgery
Duncan, J. S., Winston, G. P., Koepp, M. J., & Ourselin, S. (2016) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00383-x · Cited by 363
Epilepsy and cognition – A bidirectional relationship?
Helmstaedter, C., & Witt, J.-A. (2017) · Seizure · doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2017.02.017 · Cited by 283
Hippocampal sclerosis—Origins and imaging
Malmgren, K., & Thom, M. (2012) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03610.x · Cited by 273
Advances in MRI for 'cryptogenic' epilepsies
Bernasconi, A., Bernasconi, N., Bernhardt, B. C., & Schrader, D. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.199 · Cited by 233
Metadata
- Authors
- von Oertzen, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-12-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 643-647
- ISSN
- 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2138729862
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.65
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standard magnetic resonance imaging is inadequate for patients with refractory focal epilepsy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp.73.6.643
- The paper
- von Oertzen, J. (2002). Standard magnetic resonance imaging is inadequate for patients with refractory focal epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.73.6.643
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.