EEG para niños con crisis convulsivas febriles complejas
Appendices
Appendix 1. Search strategy
EEG for children with complex febrile seizures
1 Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web)
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):AB,KW,MC,MH,TI
6. #4 OR #5
7. #3 AND #6
8. >23/01/2017:CRSCREATED
9. #7 AND #8
2 MEDLINE (Ovid)
This strategy is based on the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials (Lefebvre 2011).
1. (randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial or pragmatic 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. remove duplicates from 18
20. limit 19 to ed = 20170123‐20190312
21. 19 not (1$ or 2$).ed.
22. 21 and (2017$ or 2018$ or 2019$).dt.
23. 20 or 22
3 ClinicalTrials.gov
electroencephalograph* or EEG | Interventional Studies | Febrile Seizures | Child | First posted on or after 23 January 2017
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 & early versus late EEG) 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, & early versus 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 being 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 participants, 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 the 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 |
The following factors would have reduced the quality of the evidence.
| 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 |
The following factors would have increased the quality of the evidence.
| No. | Factor | Consequence |
| 1 | Large magnitude of effect
| 1 or 2 levels |
| 2 | Dose‐response gradient
| 1 level
|
For example, had we found that the results were precise, we would have chosen 'no' in GRADEpro (GRADEpro 2014). If serious imprecision was present, we would have chosen no. 4 and downgraded by one level in GRADEpro. If very serious imprecision was present, we would have chosen 'very serious', which may have led to downgrading of the quality of the evidence for the particular outcome by two levels. We would have documented this in a footnote in the 'Summary of findings' table.
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 number of hits after duplicates removed | Total number 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 | ‐ |
Revised search results in 2017 are as follows.
| Date of search | New hits | New hits after 2 irrelevant hits removed | |
| Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register | 23 January 2017 | 0 | 4 |
| CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) | 23 January 2017 | 4 | |
| MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946‐ | 23 January 2017 | 2 | |
| ClinicalTrials.gov | 23 January 2017 | 0 | |
| Total | 6 |
Search Results Revised in 2019
| Date of search | New hits | New hits after 1 duplicate removed | |
| Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) | 12 March 2019 | 6 | 7 |
| Medline (Ovid) 1946 to March 11, 2019 | 12 March 2019 | 2 | |
| ClinicalTrials.gov | 12 March 2019 | 0 | |
| Total | 8 |
PRISMA Study flow diagram.
