↓ Skip to main content

The role of high-frequency oscillations in epilepsy surgery planning

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters


7 Dimensions

Readers on

85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
The role of high-frequency oscillations in epilepsy surgery planning
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010235.pub3
Pubmed ID

David Gloss, Sarah J Nevitt, Richard Staba


Epilepsy is a serious brain disorder characterized by recurrent unprovoked seizures. Approximately two-thirds of seizures can be controlled with antiepileptic medications (Kwan 2000). For some of the others, surgery can completely eliminate or significantly reduce the occurrence of disabling seizures. Localization of epileptogenic areas for resective surgery is far from perfect, and new tools are being investigated to more accurately localize the epileptogenic zone (the zone of the brain where the seizures begin) and improve the likelihood of freedom from postsurgical seizures. Recordings of pathological high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) may be one such tool. To assess the ability of HFOs to improve the outcomes of epilepsy surgery by helping to identify more accurately the epileptogenic areas of the brain. For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (25 July 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 25 July 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 25 July 2016), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 25 July 2016), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, 25 July 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (25 July 2016), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (25 July 2016). We included studies that provided information on the outcomes of epilepsy surgery for at least six months and which used high-frequency oscillations in making decisions about epilepsy surgery. The primary outcome of the review was the Engel Class Outcome System (class I = no disabling seizures, II = rare disabling seizures, III = worthwhile improvement, IV = no worthwhile improvement). Secondary outcomes were responder rate, International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) epilepsy surgery outcome, frequency of adverse events from any source and quality of life outcomes. We intended to analyse outcomes via an aggregated data fixed-effect model meta-analysis. Two studies representing 11 participants met the inclusion criteria. Both studies were small non-randomised trials, with no control group and no blinding. The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. The combination of these two studies resulted in 11 participants who prospectively used ictal HFOs for epilepsy surgery decision making. Results of the postsurgical seizure freedom Engel class I to IV outcome were determined over a period of 12 to 38 months (average 23.4 months) and indicated that six participants had an Engel class I outcome (seizure freedom), two had class II (rare disabling seizures), three had class III (worthwhile improvement). No adverse effects were reported. Neither study compared surgical results guided by HFOs versus surgical results guided without HFOs. No reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of using HFOs in epilepsy surgery decision making at present.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 28%
Engineering 9 11%
Neuroscience 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 19 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 273,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.