TY - JOUR
T1 - Development of an online tool to determine appropriateness for an epilepsy; surgery evaluation
AU - Jette, Nathalie
AU - Quan, Hude
AU - Tellez-Zenteno, Jose F.
AU - Macrodimitris, Sophia
AU - Hader, Walter J.
AU - Sherman, Elisabeth M.S.
AU - Hamiwka, Lorie D.
AU - Wirrell, Elaine C.
AU - Burneo, Jorge G.
AU - Metcalfe, Amy
AU - Faris, Peter D.
AU - Hernandez-Ronquillo, Lizbeth
AU - Kwon, Churl Su
AU - Kirk, Andrew
AU - Wiebe, Samuel
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by a Clinician Scientist award to N. Jette from the American Epilepsy Society (AES) and the Milken Family Foundation and operating grants and/or funds from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions (AIHS), Alberta Health Services, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, and the University of Calgary. N. Jette holds a salary award from AIHS and a Canada Research Chair Tier 2 in Neurological Health Services Research. She also held a CIHR salary award during part of this study (declined after November 2010). H. Quan is a CIHR and an AIHS Population Health Investigator. S. Wiebe holds the Hopewell Professorship of Clinical Neurosciences Research at the University of Calgary. J.F. Tellez-Zenteno holds a salary award from the Royal University Hospital Foundation in Saskatoon through the Mudjadik Thyssen Mining Professorship in Neurosciences and also receives operating funds from the University of Saskatchewan. A. Metcalfe has a doctoral award from CIHR in Genetics (Ethics, Law and Society) and CIHR strategic training grant studentships in Maternal Fetal Newborn Health and Genetics, Child Development and Health. E. Wirrell is supported by the Mayo Foundation CR20 Award. AIHS, CIHR, AES, Milken Family Foundation, Alberta Health Services, the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, and the University of Calgary did not participate in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
PY - 2012/9/11
Y1 - 2012/9/11
N2 - Objectives: Despite evidence that epilepsy surgery is more effective than medical therapy, significant delays between seizure intractability and surgery exist. We aimed to develop a new Webbased methodology to assist physicians in identifying patients who might benefit from an epilepsy surgery evaluation. Methods: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. Clinical scenarios were developed based on eligibility criteria from previously published surgical series. Thirteen national experts rated the scenarios for their appropriateness for an epilepsy surgery evaluation based on published evidence. All scenarios were rerated after a face-to-face meeting following a modified Delphi process. Appropriate scenarios were rerated for necessity to determine referral priority. Results: Of the final 2646 scenarios, 20.6% (n - 544) were appropriate, 17.2% (n - 456) uncertain, and 61.5% (n - 1626) inappropriate for a surgical evaluation. Of the appropriate cases, 55.9% (n - 306) were rated as very high priority. Not attempting AED treatment was always rated as inappropriate for a referral. Trial of 2 AEDs was usually rated as appropriate unless seizure-free or not fully investigated Based on these data, a Web-based decision tool (www. epilepsycases.com) was created Conclusions: Using the available evidence through 2008 and expert consensus, we developed a Web-based decision tool that provides a guide for determining candidacy for epilepsy surgery evaluations. The tool needs clinical validation, and will be updated and revised regularly. This rendition of the tool is most appropriate for those over age 12 years with focal epilepsy. The Rand/UCLA appropriate methodology might be considered in the development of guidelines in other areas of epilepsy care.
AB - Objectives: Despite evidence that epilepsy surgery is more effective than medical therapy, significant delays between seizure intractability and surgery exist. We aimed to develop a new Webbased methodology to assist physicians in identifying patients who might benefit from an epilepsy surgery evaluation. Methods: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. Clinical scenarios were developed based on eligibility criteria from previously published surgical series. Thirteen national experts rated the scenarios for their appropriateness for an epilepsy surgery evaluation based on published evidence. All scenarios were rerated after a face-to-face meeting following a modified Delphi process. Appropriate scenarios were rerated for necessity to determine referral priority. Results: Of the final 2646 scenarios, 20.6% (n - 544) were appropriate, 17.2% (n - 456) uncertain, and 61.5% (n - 1626) inappropriate for a surgical evaluation. Of the appropriate cases, 55.9% (n - 306) were rated as very high priority. Not attempting AED treatment was always rated as inappropriate for a referral. Trial of 2 AEDs was usually rated as appropriate unless seizure-free or not fully investigated Based on these data, a Web-based decision tool (www. epilepsycases.com) was created Conclusions: Using the available evidence through 2008 and expert consensus, we developed a Web-based decision tool that provides a guide for determining candidacy for epilepsy surgery evaluations. The tool needs clinical validation, and will be updated and revised regularly. This rendition of the tool is most appropriate for those over age 12 years with focal epilepsy. The Rand/UCLA appropriate methodology might be considered in the development of guidelines in other areas of epilepsy care.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867523609&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867523609&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182698c4c
DO - 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182698c4c
M3 - Article
C2 - 22895589
AN - SCOPUS:84867523609
SN - 0028-3878
VL - 79
SP - 1084
EP - 1093
JO - Neurology
JF - Neurology
IS - 11
ER -