在临床相关时间点,首次疑似癫痫发作的目击者回忆符号学的准确性如何?英国一项试点干预的实验研究。

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-09-06 DOI:10.1111/epi.18624
Adam J Noble, Steven Lane, Paul New, Harriet Cope, Chloe Foley, Holly Lynn Williams, Laszlo Sztriha, Graham Powell, Markus Reuber, Anthony G Marson
{"title":"在临床相关时间点,首次疑似癫痫发作的目击者回忆符号学的准确性如何?英国一项试点干预的实验研究。","authors":"Adam J Noble, Steven Lane, Paul New, Harriet Cope, Chloe Foley, Holly Lynn Williams, Laszlo Sztriha, Graham Powell, Markus Reuber, Anthony G Marson","doi":"10.1111/epi.18624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A key diagnostic challenge at \"first seizure\" clinic appointments is determining whether the reported event was epileptic. Witness accounts are often critical, yet such appointments typically occur weeks after the event. Guidelines recommend review within 2 weeks. Wait times are however often longer, with a median of 7 weeks in countries such as the UK. The accuracy of witness recall at these clinically relevant intervals and whether their confidence predicts accuracy have never been determined. This study addressed these fundamental questions. It also piloted a potential intervention: whether asking witnesses a set of systematic questions immediately after viewing a suspected seizure improves recall at follow-up, compared to the usual free recall approach used by first responders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this UK-based experimental study, adults (≥18 years old) viewed a video of an epileptic seizure and were randomized into four conditions: A (immediate free recall + 2-week follow-up), B (immediate free recall + 7-week follow-up), C (immediate systematic questions + 2-week follow-up), and D (immediate systematic questions + 7-week follow-up). The primary outcome was accuracy on 15 standardized questions addressing key semiological features, scored against consensus ratings from five neurologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a representative sample of 304 participants, 295 (97%) fully viewed the video, and 94.7% completed follow-up. At 2 weeks, participants answered 54.4% of questions correctly-only 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .52-7.3) more than those at 7 weeks. Confidence was poorly correlated with accuracy. Immediate systematic questioning improved later recall by 6.7% (95% CI = 3.3-10.0). A definitive trial of this intervention would require 926 participants.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>This is the first evidence on the accuracy of witness recall at clinically relevant intervals. Recall is modest even within recommended timeframes and declines only slightly by 7 weeks. Witness confidence does not predict accuracy. Immediate structured questioning may enhance later recall and thus support seizure diagnoses.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How accurate are witnesses of first suspected seizures in recalling semiology at clinically relevant timepoints? A UK experimental study with a pilot intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Adam J Noble, Steven Lane, Paul New, Harriet Cope, Chloe Foley, Holly Lynn Williams, Laszlo Sztriha, Graham Powell, Markus Reuber, Anthony G Marson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/epi.18624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A key diagnostic challenge at \\\"first seizure\\\" clinic appointments is determining whether the reported event was epileptic. Witness accounts are often critical, yet such appointments typically occur weeks after the event. Guidelines recommend review within 2 weeks. Wait times are however often longer, with a median of 7 weeks in countries such as the UK. The accuracy of witness recall at these clinically relevant intervals and whether their confidence predicts accuracy have never been determined. This study addressed these fundamental questions. It also piloted a potential intervention: whether asking witnesses a set of systematic questions immediately after viewing a suspected seizure improves recall at follow-up, compared to the usual free recall approach used by first responders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this UK-based experimental study, adults (≥18 years old) viewed a video of an epileptic seizure and were randomized into four conditions: A (immediate free recall + 2-week follow-up), B (immediate free recall + 7-week follow-up), C (immediate systematic questions + 2-week follow-up), and D (immediate systematic questions + 7-week follow-up). The primary outcome was accuracy on 15 standardized questions addressing key semiological features, scored against consensus ratings from five neurologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a representative sample of 304 participants, 295 (97%) fully viewed the video, and 94.7% completed follow-up. At 2 weeks, participants answered 54.4% of questions correctly-only 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .52-7.3) more than those at 7 weeks. Confidence was poorly correlated with accuracy. Immediate systematic questioning improved later recall by 6.7% (95% CI = 3.3-10.0). A definitive trial of this intervention would require 926 participants.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>This is the first evidence on the accuracy of witness recall at clinically relevant intervals. Recall is modest even within recommended timeframes and declines only slightly by 7 weeks. Witness confidence does not predict accuracy. Immediate structured questioning may enhance later recall and thus support seizure diagnoses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18624\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18624","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:一个关键的诊断挑战在“首次发作”门诊预约是确定报告的事件是否癫痫。证人的证词通常是至关重要的,但这种任命通常发生在事件发生几周后。指南建议在两周内复查。然而,等待时间往往更长,在英国等国家,等待时间的中位数为7周。证人回忆的准确性在这些临床相关的间隔和他们的信心是否预测准确性从未确定。这项研究解决了这些基本问题。它还试点了一项潜在的干预措施:与第一反应者通常使用的自由回忆方法相比,在看到疑似癫痫发作后立即向目击者询问一组系统的问题,是否能提高后续的回忆能力。方法:在这项英国的实验研究中,成年人(≥18岁)观看了癫痫发作的视频,并随机分为四组:a(立即自由回忆+ 2周随访),B(立即自由回忆+ 7周随访),C(立即系统问题+ 2周随访)和D(立即系统问题+ 7周随访)。主要结果是针对关键符号学特征的15个标准化问题的准确性,与五位神经学家的共识评分相比较。结果:在304名参与者的代表性样本中,295人(97%)完全观看了视频,94.7%完成了随访。2周时,参与者正确回答了54.4%的问题,仅比7周时多3.9%(95%可信区间[CI] = 0.52 -7.3)。信心与准确性的相关性很差。即时系统提问提高了6.7% (95% CI = 3.3-10.0)。这种干预的最终试验需要926名参与者。意义:这是在临床相关时间间隔上证人回忆准确性的第一个证据。即使在建议的时间范围内,召回率也不高,仅在7周内略有下降。证人的信心不能预测准确性。即时的结构化提问可以增强后来的回忆,从而支持癫痫的诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How accurate are witnesses of first suspected seizures in recalling semiology at clinically relevant timepoints? A UK experimental study with a pilot intervention.

Objective: A key diagnostic challenge at "first seizure" clinic appointments is determining whether the reported event was epileptic. Witness accounts are often critical, yet such appointments typically occur weeks after the event. Guidelines recommend review within 2 weeks. Wait times are however often longer, with a median of 7 weeks in countries such as the UK. The accuracy of witness recall at these clinically relevant intervals and whether their confidence predicts accuracy have never been determined. This study addressed these fundamental questions. It also piloted a potential intervention: whether asking witnesses a set of systematic questions immediately after viewing a suspected seizure improves recall at follow-up, compared to the usual free recall approach used by first responders.

Methods: In this UK-based experimental study, adults (≥18 years old) viewed a video of an epileptic seizure and were randomized into four conditions: A (immediate free recall + 2-week follow-up), B (immediate free recall + 7-week follow-up), C (immediate systematic questions + 2-week follow-up), and D (immediate systematic questions + 7-week follow-up). The primary outcome was accuracy on 15 standardized questions addressing key semiological features, scored against consensus ratings from five neurologists.

Results: Of a representative sample of 304 participants, 295 (97%) fully viewed the video, and 94.7% completed follow-up. At 2 weeks, participants answered 54.4% of questions correctly-only 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .52-7.3) more than those at 7 weeks. Confidence was poorly correlated with accuracy. Immediate systematic questioning improved later recall by 6.7% (95% CI = 3.3-10.0). A definitive trial of this intervention would require 926 participants.

Significance: This is the first evidence on the accuracy of witness recall at clinically relevant intervals. Recall is modest even within recommended timeframes and declines only slightly by 7 weeks. Witness confidence does not predict accuracy. Immediate structured questioning may enhance later recall and thus support seizure diagnoses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信