Association between epilepsy and challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities: systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 5 (September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Deb, Shoumitro; Akrout Brizard, Basma; Limbu, Bharati
• Is Part Of: BJPsych open. Volume 6:Issue 5(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-09
• Subjects: Intellectual disabilities, -- adults, -- challenging behaviour, -- systematic review, -- meta-analysis; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Mental health -- Periodicals; 616.89005
• DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2020.96
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2056-4724

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Previous systematic reviews showed no significant association between epilepsy and challenging behaviours in adults with intellectual disabilities. Aims: To identify whether there is an association between epilepsy and challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities by carrying out a systematic review of published data. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020178092. Method: We searched five databases and hand-searched six journals. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full articles using a standardised eligibility checklist. Several meta-analyses were carried out. Results: The narrative analysis of data from 34 included articles (14 168 adults with intellectual disabilities, 4781 of whom also had epilepsy) showed no significant association between epilepsy and challenging behaviour. Meta-analysis was possible on data from 16 controlled studies. This showed no significant intergroup difference but after sensitivity analysis meta-analysis of 10 studies showed a significantly higher rate of overall challenging behaviour in the epilepsy group (effect size: 0.16) compared with the non-epilepsy group. Aggression and self-injurious behaviour both showed a statistically significant higher rate in the epilepsy group, with very small effect sizes (0.16 and 0.28 respectively). No significant intergroup difference was observed in the rate of stereotypy. Conclusions: The findings are contradictory and must be interpreted with caution because of the difficulty in pooling data from varied studies, which is likely to introduce confounding. Where significant differences were found, effect sizes are small and may not be clinically significant, and there are major methodological flaws in the included studies, which should be addressed in future large-scale properly controlled studies.