Elsevier

Epilepsy Research

Volume 43, Issue 3, 1 March 2001, Pages 193-199
Epilepsy Research

Evaluation of the accuracy of seizure descriptions by the relatives of patients with epilepsy

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-1211(00)00209-6Get rights and content

Abstract

The descriptions of seizures by witnesses are important in the diagnosis and classification of epileptic seizures. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of this information obtained from relatives of patients with epileptic and non-epileptic attacks. Thirty patients with epileptic or non-epileptic attacks had seizures videorecorded whilst inpatients at the Assessment and Treatment Centre of the National Society for Epilepsy and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, UK. A relative or close friend of each patient viewed the recording and subsequently completed a structured questionnaire, testing recall of 15 separate elements of the episode. This account was compared to a definitive evaluation completed by medical staff. An accuracy of describing seizures was therefore obtained. Our results showed that there was a wide variation in the accuracy of recall with convulsive episodes described less well than non-convulsive (median accuracies 44.5 and 70%, respectively, P<0.05). Attacks in which the diagnosis had been changed, following admission, from the one obtained on history alone were particularly inaccurately described (median accuracy 26%). Elements of the questionnaire that were most inaccurately recalled were description of limb movement and post-ictal behaviour. Those most accurately described were facial appearance and vocalization. Features only present in non-epileptic attacks included reactivity to eyelash stimulation, opisthotonic posturing, flailing or protective limb movements. In conclusion, our results confirm that inaccuracy exists when witnesses describe attacks and that this may lead to errors in diagnosis and subsequent treatment.

Introduction

The diagnosis of epilepsy relies primarily upon a detailed eyewitness account of a seizure. The description of seizures by witnesses is often incomplete or inaccurate. Descriptions can occasionally be misleading to the extent that psychogenic episodes may be incorrectly diagnosed as epileptic, leading to treatment with anti-epileptic medication for several years that is ineffective, costly and has adverse effects (Aird and Tsukaki, 1958, Meierkord et al., 1991). Further, seizures may be incorrectly classified and therefore treated inappropriately. Videorecording and, in particular, simultaneous video/EEG recording has been shown to increase the accuracy of diagnosis, importantly identifying those patients with non-epileptic attack disorder (Luther et al., 1982, Meierkord et al., 1991, Samuel and Duncan, 1994).

The in-patient Assessment and Treatment Centre of the National Society for Epilepsy and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery at Chalfont receives tertiary referrals of patients with epilepsy from all over the UK. The seizures of all patients in the assessment centre are videotaped and these recordings are reviewed by medical staff to aid seizure classification. In addition, structured questionnaires are used routinely to quickly assess and classify patients’ attacks. For the purposes of this study, the seizures of 30 patients were videotaped and their relatives or close friends completed a questionnaire after watching the recorded seizure. We report the accuracy of these completed questionnaires in describing the videotaped event.

Section snippets

Subjects and methods

Seventy-three patients (42 women) were admitted to the Assessment and Treatment Centre over a 16-week period, for review of diagnosis, optimization of medication for apparently refractory epilepsy or pre-surgical assessment. All patients gave written consent for the study.

The camera used was a lightweight, hand-held, battery-powered video camcorder, which was both readily available to unit staff and easy to operate. A zoom function facilitated the recording of eye and facial detail and a

Results

Forty-three of the 73 patients admitted had seizures videotaped. Thirteen were excluded either because the videorecording showed only a small proportion of the attack or only the post-ictal period, recording quality was too poor for adequate visualisation of the patient or witnesses were not available to view the videorecording. The remaining 30 patients (19 women) were aged 18–71 years (mean: 34.8 years).

Of the 30 patients, 16 (53%) had epileptic seizures recorded, of which six were

Discussion

The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of witnesses describing a previously viewed event, therefore emulating conditions encountered in the out-patients’ department when details are sought regarding a patient's seizures.

The accuracy relies on the witnesses’ ability to recall the episode, which is most likely dependant on factors relating to both seizure and witness, including the complexity of the seizure, level of concentration and attention, awareness of all the possible elements of

References (5)

  • R.B. Aird et al.

    Common sources of error in the diagnosis and treatment of convulsive disorders

    J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.

    (1958)
  • A.M. Kanner et al.

    Supplementary motor seizures mimicking pseudoseizures: Some clinical differences

    Neurology

    (1990)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (80)

  • Cognitive profiles in pediatric unilobar vs. multilobar epilepsy

    2022, European Journal of Paediatric Neurology
  • Seizures, semiology, and syndromes: A narrative review

    2021, Seizure
    Citation Excerpt :

    Regrettably, these witness reports are also generally unreliable and subject to considerable variability. Core features of a seizure may be missed, or worse, erroneously reported [6, 7]. Some tools may ameliorate this loss of information.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text