Background

The year 2020 marked a fundamental shift in the pediatric neurology field. An impressive positive trajectory of advances in patient care and research faced sudden global disruptions by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and by an international movement protesting racial, socioeconomic, and health disparities. The disruptions revealed obstacles and fragility within the pediatric neurology research mission. However, renewed commitment offers unique opportunities for the pediatric neurology research community to enhance and prioritize research directions for the coming decades.

Methods

The Research Committee of the Child Neurology Society evaluated the challenges and opportunities facing the pediatric neurology research field, including reviewing published literature, synthesizing publically available data, and conducting a survey of pediatric neurologists.

Results

We identified three priority domains for the research mission: funding levels, active guidance, and reducing disparities. Funding levels: to increase funding to match the burden of pediatric neurological disease; to tailor funding mechanisms and strategies to support clinical trial efforts unique to pediatric neurology; and to support investigators across their career trajectory. Active guidance: to optimize infrastructure and strategies, to leverage novel therapeutics, enhance data collection, and improve inclusion of children in clinical trials. Reducing disparities: to reduce health disparities in children with neurological disease, to develop proactive measures to enhance workforce diversity and inclusion, and increase avenues to balance work-life obligations for investigators.

Conclusions

In this uniquely challenging epoch, the pediatric neurology research community has a timely and important mission to re-engage the public and government, advancing the health of children with neurological conditions.

Objective

To perform a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to identify preoperative factors associated with a good seizure outcome in children with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex undergoing resective epilepsy surgery.

Data sources

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science), archives of major epilepsy and neurosurgery meetings, and bibliographies of relevant articles, with no language or date restrictions.

Study selection

We included case-control or cohort studies of consecutive participants undergoing resective epilepsy surgery that reported seizure outcomes. We performed title and abstract and full text screening independently and in duplicate. We resolved disagreements through discussion.

Data extraction

One author performed data extraction which was verified by a second author using predefined data fields including study quality assessment using a risk of bias instrument we developed. We recorded all preoperative factors that may plausibly predict seizure outcomes.

Data synthesis

To identify predictors of a good seizure outcome (i.e. Engel Class I or II) we used logistic regression adjusting for length of follow-up for each preoperative variable.

Results

Of 9863 citations, 20 articles reporting on 181 participants were eligible. Good seizure outcomes were observed in 126 (69%) participants (Engel Class I: 102(56%); Engel class II: 24(13%)). In univariable analyses, absence of generalized seizure semiology (OR = 3.1, 95%CI = 1.2-8.2, p = 0.022), no or mild developmental delay (OR = 7.3, 95%CI = 2.1-24.7, p = 0.001), unifocal ictal scalp electroencephalographic (EEG) abnormality (OR = 3.2, 95%CI = 1.4-7.6, p = 0.008) and EEG/Magnetic resonance imaging concordance (OR = 4.9, 95%CI = 1.8-13.5, p = 0.002) were associated with a good postoperative seizure outcome.

Conclusions

Small retrospective cohort studies are inherently prone to bias, some of which are overcome using individual participant data. The best available evidence suggests four preoperative factors predictive of good seizure outcomes following resective epilepsy surgery. Large long-term prospective multicenter observational studies are required to further evaluate the risk factors identified in this review.