PURPOSE: To validate a brief screening instrument for identifying people with epilepsy in epidemiologic or genetic studies. METHODS: We designed a nine-question screening instrument for epilepsy and administered it by telephone to individuals with medical record-documented epilepsy (lifetime history of >or=2 unprovoked seizures, n = 168) or isolated unprovoked seizure (n = 54), and individuals who were seizure-free on medical record review (n = 120), from a population-based study using Rochester Epidemiology Project resources. Interviewers were blinded to record-review findings. RESULTS: Sensitivity (the proportion of individuals who screened positive among affected individuals) was 96% for epilepsy and 87% for isolated unprovoked seizure. The false positive rate (FPR, the proportion who screened positive among seizure-free individuals) was 7%. The estimated positive predictive value (PPV) for epilepsy was 23%, assuming a lifetime prevalence of 2% in the population. Use of only a single question asking whether the subject had ever had epilepsy or a seizure disorder resulted in sensitivity 76%, FPR 0.8%, and estimated PPV 66%. Subjects with epilepsy were more likely to screen positive with this question if they were diagnosed after 1964 or continued to have seizures for at least 5 years after diagnosis. DISCUSSION: Given its high sensitivity, our instrument may be useful for the first stage of screening for epilepsy; however, the PPV of 23% suggests that only about one in four screen-positive individuals will be truly affected. Screening with a single question asking about epilepsy yields a higher PPV but lower sensitivity, and screen-positive subjects may be biased toward more severe epilepsy.
PURPOSE: To validate a brief screening instrument for identifying people with epilepsy in epidemiologic or genetic studies. METHODS: We designed a nine-question screening instrument for epilepsy and administered it by telephone to individuals with medical record-documented epilepsy (lifetime history of >or=2 unprovoked seizures, n = 168) or isolated unprovoked seizure (n = 54), and individuals who were seizure-free on medical record review (n = 120), from a population-based study using Rochester Epidemiology Project resources. Interviewers were blinded to record-review findings. RESULTS: Sensitivity (the proportion of individuals who screened positive among affected individuals) was 96% for epilepsy and 87% for isolated unprovoked seizure. The false positive rate (FPR, the proportion who screened positive among seizure-free individuals) was 7%. The estimated positive predictive value (PPV) for epilepsy was 23%, assuming a lifetime prevalence of 2% in the population. Use of only a single question asking whether the subject had ever had epilepsy or a seizure disorder resulted in sensitivity 76%, FPR 0.8%, and estimated PPV 66%. Subjects with epilepsy were more likely to screen positive with this question if they were diagnosed after 1964 or continued to have seizures for at least 5 years after diagnosis. DISCUSSION: Given its high sensitivity, our instrument may be useful for the first stage of screening for epilepsy; however, the PPV of 23% suggests that only about one in four screen-positive individuals will be truly affected. Screening with a single question asking about epilepsy yields a higher PPV but lower sensitivity, and screen-positive subjects may be biased toward more severe epilepsy.
Authors: A Nicoletti; A Reggio; A Bartoloni; G Failla; V Sofia; F Bartalesi; M Roselli; H Gamboa; E Salazar; R Osinaga; F Paradisi; G Tempera; M Dumas; A J Hall Journal: Neurology Date: 1999-12-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ana L A Noronha; Moacir A Borges; Lucia H N Marques; Dirce M T Zanetta; Paula T Fernandes; Hanneke de Boer; Javier Espíndola; Claudio T Miranda; Leonid Prilipko; Gail S Bell; Josemir W Sander; Li M Li Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Elizabeth A Kelvin; Dale C Hesdorffer; Emilia Bagiella; Howard Andrews; Timothy A Pedley; Tina T Shih; Linda Leary; David J Thurman; W Allen Hauser Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Linda A Corey; Marianne J Kjeldsen; Marit H Solaas; Karl Otto Nakken; Mogens L Friis; John M Pellock Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Meral A Tubi; Evan Lutkenhoff; Manuel Buitrago Blanco; David McArthur; Pablo Villablanca; Benjamin Ellingson; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia; Paul Van Ness; Courtney Real; Vikesh Shrestha; Jerome Engel; Paul M Vespa Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: Carla Bentes; Hugo Martins; Ana Rita Peralta; Carlos Casimiro; Carlos Morgado; Ana Catarina Franco; Ana Catarina Fonseca; Ruth Geraldes; Patrícia Canhão; Teresa Pinho E Melo; Teresa Paiva; José M Ferro Journal: J Neurol Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Andy Tran; Kiran T Thakur; Noeline Nakasujja; Gertrude Nakigozi; Alice Kisakye; James Batte; Richard Mayanja; Aggrey Anok; Ronald H Gray; Maria J Wawer; Leah H Rubin; Ned Sacktor; Deanna Saylor Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Anna L Peljto; Christie Barker-Cummings; Vincent M Vasoli; Cynthia L Leibson; W Allen Hauser; Jeffrey R Buchhalter; Ruth Ottman Journal: Brain Date: 2014-01-26 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Markus Reuber; Min Chen; Jenny Jamnadas-Khoda; Mark Broadhurst; Melanie Wall; Richard A Grünewald; Stephen J Howell; Matthias Koepp; Steve Parry; Sanjay Sisodiya; Matthew Walker; Dale Hesdorffer Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Barbara L Kroner; Mansour Fahimi; Anne Kenyon; David J Thurman; William D Gaillard Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.045