Objective: To review population-based studies of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy worldwide and use meta-analytic techniques to explore factors that may explain heterogeneity between estimates.Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published on the prevalence or incidence of epilepsy since 1985. Abstract, full-text review, and data abstraction were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to explore the association between prevalence or incidence, age group, sex, country level income, and study quality.Results: A total of 222 studies were included (197 on prevalence, 48 on incidence). The point prevalence of active epilepsy was 6.38 per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.57-7.30), while the lifetime prevalence was 7.60 per 1,000 persons (95% CI 6.17-9.38). The annual cumulative incidence of epilepsy was 67.77 per 100,000 persons (95% CI 56.69-81.03) while the incidence rate was 61.44 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 50.75-74.38). The prevalence of epilepsy did not differ by age group, sex, or study quality. The active annual period prevalence, lifetime prevalence, and incidence rate of epilepsy were higher in low to middle income countries. Epilepsies of unknown etiology and those with generalized seizures had the highest prevalence.Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy from published international studies and offers insight into factors that contribute to heterogeneity between estimates. Significant gaps (e.g., lack of incidence studies, stratification by age groups) were identified. Standardized reporting of future epidemiologic studies of epilepsy is needed. Neurology ® 2017;88:296-303 GLOSSARY CI 5 confidence interval.

BackgroundPeople with chronic diseases experience barriers to managing their diseases and accessing available health services. Patient navigator programs are increasingly being used to help people with chronic diseases navigate and access health services.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to summarize the evidence for patient navigator programs in people with a broad range of chronic diseases, compared to usual care.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Social Work Abstracts from inception to August 23, 2017. We also searched the reference lists of included articles. We included original reports of randomized controlled trials of patient navigator programs compared to usual care for adult and pediatric patients with any one of a defined set of chronic diseases.ResultsFrom a total of 14,672 abstracts, 67 unique studies fit our inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 were in cancer, 8 in diabetes, 7 in HIV/AIDS, 4 in cardiovascular disease, 2 in chronic kidney disease, 1 in dementia and 1 in patients with more than one condition. Program characteristics varied considerably. Primary outcomes were most commonly process measures, and 45 of 67 studies reported a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome.ConclusionOur findings indicate that patient navigator programs improve processes of care, although few studies assessed patient experience, clinical outcomes or costs. The inability to definitively outline successful components remains a key uncertainty in the use of patient navigator programs across chronic diseases. Given the increasing popularity of patient navigators, future studies should use a consistent definition for patient navigation and determine which elements of this intervention are most likely to lead to improved outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO #CRD42013005857

Background: Recent observational studies suggest that the risk for stroke may be high in the first 90 days after transient ischemic attack (TIA). This finding may, however, not be consistent across existing studies assessing stroke risk after TIA. The objectives of our study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies estimating the risk of stroke at 2, 30, and 90 days after TIA and to explore clinical and methodological factors that may explain variability in findings across studies.Methods: Articles were obtained by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1996 to present), MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), and BIOSIS previews (1980 to present). Searches were supplemented by scanning bibliographies of included articles, review articles, and conference proceedings and by contacting an expert in the field. Abstracts were retained if they reported original data and addressed early risk of stroke in patients with TIA. We identified 51 candidate studies reporting early risk of stroke after TIA. Two reviewers independently extracted information from 11 selected studies. Indicators of study quality were collected and in-cluded consecutive enrollment, losses to follow-up, explicit criteria used to define TIA and stroke, and method of ascertainment. Pooled early risk of stroke was estimated using fixed and random effects models, and metaregression was used to assess the association between clinical and methodological factors and the reported early risk of stroke.Results: Based on a random effects model, the pooled early risk of stroke was 3.5%, 8.0%, and 9.2% at 2, 30, and 90 days after TIA, respectively. Studies reported higher risks when the methodology involved active ascertainment of stroke outcome compared with passive ascertainment. Early risk of stroke was 9.9%, 13.4%, and 17.3% at 2, 30, and 90 days, respectively, when only studies with active outcome ascertainment were considered. Conclusions:Transient ischemic attack is associated with high early risk of stroke. The methodological design of studies accounts for some of the variability seen in previous reports of early stroke risk after TIA.