EEG kod djece sa složenim febrilnim konvulzijama
Appendices
Appendix 1. Search strategy
EEG for children with complex febrile seizures
1 Epilepsy Specialized Register 6 July 2015
#1 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Seizures, Febrile Explode All
#2 (febrile seizure*) or (febrile convulsion*) or (pyrexial seizure*) or (pyrexial convulsion*) or (fever seizure*) or (fever convulsion*)
#3 #1 OR #2
#4 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Electroencephalography Explode All
#5 electroencephalograph* or EEG
#6 #4 OR #5
#7 #3 AND #6 AND INREGISTER AND >2011:YR
2 CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6
#1 MeSH descriptor: [Seizures, Febrile] explode all trees
#2 (febrile seizure*) or (febrile convulsion*) or (pyrexial seizure*) or (pyrexial convulsion*) or (fever seizure*) or (fever convulsion*)
#3 #1 or #2
#4 MeSH descriptor: [Electroencephalography] explode all trees
#5 electroencephalograph* or EEG
#6 #4 or #5
#7 #3 and #6 from 2012, in Trials
3 MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 6 July 2015
1. (randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial).pt. or (randomi?ed or placebo or randomly).ab.
2. clinical trials as topic.sh.
3. trial.ti.
4. 1 or 2 or 3
5. exp animals/ not humans.sh.
6. 4 not 5
7. exp Seizures, Febrile/
8. febrile seizure*.tw.
9. febrile convulsion*.tw.
10. pyrexial seizure*.tw.
11. pyrexial convulsion*.tw.
12. fever seizure*.tw.
13. fever convulsion*.tw.
14. 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
15. exp Electroencephalography/
16. (electroencephalograph* or EEG).tw.
17. 15 or 16
18. 6 and 14 and 17
19. limit 18 to ed=20121001‐20150706
4 ClinicalTrials.gov 6 July 2015
"Febrile Seizures" and Children | received from 10/17/2013 to 07/06/2015
Appendix 2. Eligibility assessment form
Name of the review author: Date:
Title of the study: Study ID:
Name of the authors of the study:
Name of the journal with year of publication:
Questions:
| No. | Questions | Remark |
| 1. | Is the study a randomised clinical trial or a quasi‐experimental study?
| Yes No Unclear |
| 2 | Did participants in the study have complex febrile seizures with first episode? | Yes No Unclear |
| 3 | Is a comparison made of no EEG and EEG (early EEG, late EEG or any time) among children having complex febrile seizures with first episode? | Yes No Unclear |
| 4 | Did the study report better epileptic management or assess risk of occurrence? | Yes No Unclear |
Final decision: Include Exclude Unclear Pending
Note:
1. Reasons for excluding the study:
2. In case study is labelled as "unclear"‐ Contact the authors __________ date:
3. In case study is labelled as "pending"‐ Contact the authors ___________date:
4. Response of the author: ___________________ date:
5. Opinion of Cochrane Epilepsy Group sought:___________________ date:
6. Opinion of Cochrane Epilepsy Group: _________________________ date:
Final decision:
Appendix 3. Data extraction form
| Date |
| |
| Name of the review author |
| |
| Title of included study |
| |
| Authors |
| |
| Journal |
| |
| Year of publication |
| |
| Sponsor of the study |
| |
| Conflict of Interest | ||
| Participants | ||
| Inclusion criteria |
| |
| Exclusion criteria |
| |
| Age range |
| |
| Ethnicity |
| |
| Any other comorbid condition |
| |
| Notes |
| |
| Intervention | ||
| No EEG and EEG (early, late EEG or any other time)(with exact details of days of seizure attack) |
| |
| Notes |
| |
|
|
| |
| Outcome for no EEG or EEG (early EEG, late EEG or any other time) | ||
|
| No EEG | EEG (early, late or any other time) |
| List of outcomes |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Notes |
|
|
| Brief description of methodology | ||
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Risk of bias tool | ||
|
|
| |
| Sequence generation | Quote:
Comment:
Judgement : Yes No Unclear
| |
| Allocation concealment | Quote:
Comment:
Judgement : Yes No Unclear
| |
| Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors | Quote:
Comment:
Judgement : Yes No Unclear
| |
| Incomplete outcome data | Quote:
Comment:
Judgement : Yes No Unclear
| |
| Selective outcome reporting | Quote:
Comment:
Judgement : Yes No Unclear
| |
| Free of other biases | Quote:
Comment:
Judgement : Yes No Unclear
| |
| Clinical trial registration details | Registration no.: Website link: Access date: Primary outcome: Secondary outcome: Any discrepancy with respect to outcome (compare with report): Any other discrepancy:
| |
Note:
1. Response of the author sought: ___________________ date:
2. Response of the author: ___________________ date: _________________________
3. Opinion of Cochrane Epilepsy Group sought:___________________ date:______________
4. Opinion of Cochrane Epilepsy Group: _________________________ date:___________________
Final comments:
Appendix 4. Risk of bias tool
| No. | Name of the bias | Description | Domains in the "risk of bias" table |
| 1 | Selection bias | Systematic differences between baseline characteristics of the groups that are compared |
|
| 2 | Performance bias | Systematic differences between groups in the care that is provided, or in exposure to factors other than the interventions of interest | Blinding of participant, personnel and outcome assessors
|
| 3 | Attrition bias | Systematic differences between groups in withdrawals from study |
|
| 4 | Detection bias | Systematic differences between groups in how outcomes are determined | Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors
|
| 5 | Reporting bias | Systematic differences between reported and unreported findings | Selective outcome reporting |
Appendix 5. 'Summary of findings' table
The GRADE approach describes levels of quality of a body of evidence as follows.
| No. | Underlying methodology quality | Rating |
| 1 | Randomised trials or double‐upgraded observational studies | High |
| 2 | Downgraded randomised trials or upgraded observational studies | Moderate |
| 3 | Double‐downgraded randomised trials or observational studies | Low |
| 4 | Triple‐downgraded randomised trials, downgraded observational | Very low |
Factors that would have reduced the quality of the evidence include the following.
| No. | Factor | Consequence |
| 1 | Limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias) | 1 or 2 levels
|
| 2 | Inconsistency of results | 1 or 2 levels |
| 3 | Indirectness of evidence | 1 or 2 levels |
| 4 | Imprecision | 1 or 2 levels |
| 5 | Publication bias | 1 or 2 levels |
Factors that would have increased the quality of the evidence include the following.
| No | Factor | Consequence |
| 1 | Large magnitude of effect
| 1 or 2 levels |
| 2 | Dose‐response gradient
| 1 level
|
For example, if we would have found that the results were precise, we would have chosen 'no' in GRADEpro software. If serious imprecision was present, we would have chosen four and downgraded by one level in the GRADEpro software. If very serious imprecision was present, we would have chosen 'very serious', and this might have led to downgrading of the quality of evidence for the particular outcome by two levels. A footnote in the 'Summary of findings' table would have documented this.
Appendix 6. Summary of the results of the search
The following table summarises the results of the searches for the review.
| Database | Date searched | Number of 'hits' | Total no. of hits after duplicates removed* | Total no. of hits after irrelevant reports removed* |
| Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register | 18 October 2012, 17 October 2013, 6 July 2015 | 7 (2012), 0 (2013), 0 (2015) | 28
| 0 |
| CENTRAL | 18 October 2012, 17 October 2013, 6 July 2015 | 13 (2012), 0 (2013), 3 (2015) | ||
| MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 onwards | 18 October 2012, 17 October 2013, 6 July 2015 | 21 (2012), 0 (2013), 0 (2015) | ||
| ClinicalTrials.gov | 18 October 2012, 17 October 2013, 6 July 2015 | 3 (2012), 5 (2013), 1 (2015) | 9 | ‐ |
