Clinical Features of Temporal Epilepsy with Involvement of the Insular Lobe

Khachatryan, R. G.; Алексеева, Т. М.; Khachatryan, W. А.; Себелев, К И; Алексеева, Н. П.

doi:10.1007/s11055-022-01248-w

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, after removing 1,068 irrelevant articles, 66 were assessed for eligibility by full text. Finally, 46 studies met the inclusion criteria, while 20 studies were excluded due to operational definitions (32)(33)(34), combined symptoms (35)(36)(37)(38), combined diagnostic categories (11,39), or insufficient information (40-50) (see Figure 1 for the PRISMA flow diagram).…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-ictal, interictal and ictal déjà vu: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hadzic,

Andersson

2024

Front. Neurol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDéjà vu, French for “already seen,” is a phenomenon most people will experience at least once in their lifetime. Emerging evidence suggests that déjà vu occurs in healthy individuals (as “non-ictal déjà vu”) and in epilepsy patients during seizures (as “ictal déjà vu”) and between seizures (as “interictal déjà vu”). Although the ILAE has recognized déjà vu as a feature of epileptic seizures, it is notably absent from the ICD-11. A lack of evidence-based research may account for this omission. To our knowledge, this study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis on déjà vu experiences. Through detailed examinations of non-ictal, interictal and ictal déjà vu, we seek to highlight possible clinical implications. Rethinking the status quo of ictal déjà vu could potentially lead to earlier interventions and improve outcomes for epilepsy patients.MethodsThis study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023394239) on 5 February 2023. Systematic searches were conducted across four databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed, from inception to 1 February 2023, limited to English language and human participants. Studies were included/excluded based on predefined criteria. Data was extracted according to the PICO framework and synthesized through a thematic approach. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate prevalence’s of the phenomena. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed.ResultsDatabase searching identified 1,677 records, of which 46 studies were included. Meta-analyses of prevalence showed that non-ictal déjà vu was experienced by 0.74 (95% CI [0.67, 0.79], p < 0.001) of healthy individuals, whereas interictal déjà vu was experienced by 0.62 (95% CI [0.48, 0.75], p = 0.099) and ictal déjà vu by 0.22 (95% CI [0.15, 0.32], p = 0.001) of epilepsy patients. Examinations of phenomenological (sex, age, frequency, duration, emotional valence, and dissociative symptoms) and neuroscientific (brain structures and functions) data revealed significant variations between non-ictal, interictal and ictal déjà vu on several domains.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis do not support the notion that non-ictal, interictal and ictal déjà vu are homogenous experiences. Instead, it provides insight into ictal déjà vu as a symptom of epilepsy that should be considered included in future revisions of the ICD-11.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394239, CRD42023394239.

show abstract