Search

Background: A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology., Methods: The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice., Discussion: Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained., Core Outcome Set Registration: COMET Initiative as study 118 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: An electrocardiogram (ECG) is a mandatory test for anyone presenting with loss of consciousness. Many referrals to the first seizure clinic (FSC) are caused by syncope. We assessed the sensitivity of neurologists' ECG reporting in detecting rhythm abnormalities including some potentially life-threatening cardiac conditions., Methods: We audited patients referred to a FSC in Glasgow over 4 years. All ECGs were interpreted by the attending neurologist as standard practice. Subsequently, two cardiologists reviewed the ECGs independently., Results: Of 160 consecutive patients, 92 patients (58%) were diagnosed as having seizures, 43 (27%) as syncope, and 25 (16%) were unclassified. Twenty eight ECGs thought to be normal by the neurologist were considered abnormal by the cardiologist, including three with long corrected QT interval. The proportion of abnormal ECGs and disparity in reporting between neurologists and cardiologists persisted independent of the underlying diagnosis., Conclusion: Reporting of ECGs by non-cardiologists may not be adequately sensitive in picking up potentially life threatening cardiac conditions. Cardiologist input into FSCs is recommended to enhance the diagnostic yield., (© 2021. The Author(s).)