2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.11.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning on Epilepsy Development: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is also consistent with prior evidence, which has demonstrated CO's neurotoxic effects 45 . A recent study also reported that patients with CO poisoning were 8.4 times more likely to develop epilepsy over the following 10 years than a comparison group without CO poisoning 46 . Heterogeneity between studies was low for this pooled estimate, indicating that this was a consistent finding across studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This finding is also consistent with prior evidence, which has demonstrated CO's neurotoxic effects 45 . A recent study also reported that patients with CO poisoning were 8.4 times more likely to develop epilepsy over the following 10 years than a comparison group without CO poisoning 46 . Heterogeneity between studies was low for this pooled estimate, indicating that this was a consistent finding across studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…45 A recent study also reported that patients with CO poisoning were 8.4 times more likely to develop epilepsy over the following 10 years than a comparison group without CO poisoning. 46 Heterogeneity between studies was low for this pooled estimate, indicating that this was a consistent finding across studies. We also observed an increased risk for the lagged effect of 1 day, although it was not statistically significant (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = .98-1.17), which supports the conclusion that the 2-day lagged effect is unlikely to be statistically spurious.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%