Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 29;2017(6):CD011412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub2
Methods Multicentre, open‐label randomised trial conducted in two centres in Italy
2 treatment arms: CBZ and LEV
Participants Participants > 18 years with late post‐stroke seizures (2 weeks to 3 years after stroke) seen in the Cerebrovascular Unit between September 2008 and March 2009. No previous AED treatments were allowed except for emergency treatments
Number randomised: CBZ = 66, LEV = 62. Number completing the trial: CBZ = 54, LEV = 52
58 male participants (55%) of those completing the trial
74 participants with partial epilepsy (74%) of those completing the trial
Mean age of those completing trial (SD): CBZ = 69.7 (13.2), LEV = 74.1 (11.3)
Interventions Monotherapy with CBZ or LEV
2‐week titration period to CBZ: 600 mg/d or LEV: 1000 mg/d
Titration period followed by 52‐week maintenance period. Range of follow‐up not stated
Outcomes Frequency of seizures during the treatment period
Rentention of treatment from the first intake
Changes in cognitive measures and quality‐of‐life measures at the end of the treatment period:
  • Mini Mental Scale Examination to evaluate global cognitive functioning

  • Logical Memory from the Wechsler Memory Scale‐Revised

  • Visual Memory was assessed with the Benton visual memory test

  • Digital Span Test for attention and some executive functions

  • Stroop Test to investigate the inhibition process

  • Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices Test for nonverbal reasoning

  • Corsi span and supraspan learning test

  • ADL index and the Instrumental‐ ADL (IADL)

  • depression was assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale


Changes in EEG assessments at the end of the treatment period
Tolerability of treatment
Notes Contact made with trial author who provided additional information for one of the trial centres but full IPD dataset unavailable. Aggregate data extracted from graph of time to seizure recurrence in the publication.
Trial was terminated early due to financial reasons when 128 out of a target 630 participants had been recruited
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation numbers were sequentially assigned across centres, and a computer‐generated randomisation scheme was used to provide balanced blocks of participants for each treatment group within each centre
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes High risk Open label trial
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes High risk Open label trial
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes High risk Attrition rates reported, only those who completed the trial were included in efficacy analyses. This is not an ITT approach
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All efficacy, cognitive and tolerability outcomes specified in the methods sections were reported well in the results section. No protocol was available.
Other bias High risk Likely that trial is underpowered from the early termination with 20% of target sample size recruited