CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Epilepsy research and treatmentPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesDiet and metabolism studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Practice parameter: Treatment of the child with a first unprovoked seizure: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society*

Open access
Hirtz, D., Berg, A., Bettis, D., Camfield, C., Camfield, P., Crumrine, P., Gaillard, W. D., Schneider, S., Shinnar, S.·2003·Neurology
DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000033622.27961.b6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society develop practice parameters as strategies for patient management based on analysis of evidence regarding risks and benefits. This parameter reviews published literature relevant to the decision to begin treatment after a child or adolescent experiences a first unprovoked seizure and presents evidence-based practice recommendations. Reasons why treatment may be considered are discussed. Evidence is reviewed concerning risk of recurrence as well as effect of treatment on prevention of recurrence and development of chronic epilepsy. Studies of side effects of anticonvulsants commonly used to treat seizures in children are also reviewed. Relevant articles are classified according to the Quality Standards Subcommittee classification scheme. Treatment after a first unprovoked seizure appears to decrease the risk of a second seizure, but there are few data from studies involving only children. There appears to be no benefit of treatment with regard to the prognosis for long-term seizure remission. Antiepileptic drugs (AED) carry risks of side effects that are particularly important in children. The decision as to whether or not to treat children and adolescents who have experienced a first unprovoked seizure must be based on a risk-benefit assessment that weighs the risk of having another seizure against the risk of chronic AED therapy. The decision should be individualized and take into account both medical issues and patient and family preference.

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 · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000033622.27961.b6

Cites

66 of 66 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing guidelines strongly support screening for bloodborne pathogens, STIs, depression, and nutritional deficiencies in those using stimulants.

    “Existing guidelines strongly support screening for bloodborne pathogens, STIs, depression, and nutritional deficiencies in those using stimulants.195- 197”

    From The ASAM/AAAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Stimulant Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [195]

    The paper’s Psychosocial considerations section discusses children treated after a first seizure, and Table 6 reports side effects of antiepileptic drugs; neither addresses screening people who use stimulants. Searches for bloodborne pathogens, STIs, depression, nutritional deficiencies, and stimulant-use screening found no relevant recommendation. Page numbers were not available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Austin JK. Concerns and fears of children with seizures. Clin Nurs Practice Epilepsy . 1993; 1: 4–10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hirtz, D., Berg, A., Bettis, D., Camfield, C., Camfield, P., Crumrine, P., Gaillard, W. D., Schneider, S., & Shinnar, S.
Affiliations
Northern Illinois University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Neurology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2003-01-28
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
166-175
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
DOI
10.1212/01.wnl.0000033622.27961.b6
OpenAlex
W2092769108
Cited by
213
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
8.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Epilepsy Society
  • American Academy of Neurology
  • Epilepsy Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Diet and metabolism studies
Keywords
first unprovoked seizure, pediatric epilepsy, antiepileptic drugs, seizure recurrence, chronic epilepsy, anticonvulsant adverse effects, risk-benefit assessment, seizure prevention, children and adolescents, seizure remission
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anticonvulsants, Behavior, Child, Child, Preschool, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition, Drug Eruptions, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Prognosis, Remission Induction, Seizures, Sleep Stages, United States, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Secondary Prevention

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