Limited guidance exists regarding the assessment and management of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) in children. Our aim was to develop consensus-based recommendations to fill this gap. The members of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Pediatric Psychiatric Issues conducted a scoping review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SR) standards. This was supplemented with a Delphi process sent to pediatric PNES experts. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. The systematic search identified 77 studies, the majority (55%) of which were retrospective (only one randomized clinical trial). The primary means of PNES identification was video electroencephalography (vEEG) in 84% of studies. Better outcome was associated with access to counseling/psychological intervention. Children with PNES have more frequent psychiatric disorders than controls. The Delphi resulted in 22 recommendations: Assessment-There was consensus on the importance of (1) taking a comprehensive developmental history; (2) obtaining a description of the events; (3) asking about potential stressors; (4) the need to use vEEG if available parent, self, and school reports and video recordings can contribute to a "probable" diagnosis; and (5) that invasive provocation techniques or deceit should not be employed. Management-There was consensus about the (1) need for a professional with expertise in epilepsy to remain involved for a period after PNES diagnosis; (2) provision of appropriate educational materials to the child and caregivers; and (3) that the decision on treatment modality for PNES in children should consider the child's age, cognitive ability, and family factors. Comorbidities-There was consensus that all children with PNES should be screened for mental health and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Recommendations to facilitate the assessment and management of PNES in children were developed. Future directions to fill knowledge gaps were proposed.
Working in Africa provides neuroscientists with opportunities that are not available in other continents. Populations in this region exhibit the greatest genetic diversity; they live in ecosystems with diverse flora and fauna; and they face unique stresses to brain health, including child brain health and development, due to high levels of traumatic brain injury and diseases endemic to the region. However, the neuroscience community in Africa has yet to reach its full potential. In this article we report the outcomes from a series of meetings at which the African neuroscience community came together to identify barriers and opportunities, and to discuss ways forward. This exercise resulted in the identification of six domains of distinction in African neuroscience: the diverse DNA of African populations; diverse flora, fauna and ecosystems for comparative research; child brain health and development; the impact of climate change on mental and neurological health; access to clinical populations with important conditions less prevalent in the global North; and resourcefulness in the reuse and adaption of existing technologies and resources to answer new questions. The article also outlines plans to advance the field of neuroscience in Africa in order to unlock the potential of African neuroscientists to address regional and global mental health and neurological problems.