↓ Skip to main content

Levetiracetam versus lorazepam in status epilepticus: a randomized, open labeled pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Levetiracetam versus lorazepam in status epilepticus: a randomized, open labeled pilot study
Published in
Journal of Neurology, September 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00415-011-6227-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

U. K. Misra, J. Kalita, P. K. Maurya

Abstract

For the management of status epilepticus (SE), lorazepam (LOR) is recommended as the first and phenytoin or fosphenytoin as the second choice. Both these drugs have significant toxicity. Intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) has become available, but its efficacy and safety has not been reported in comparison to LOR. We report a randomized, open labeled pilot study comparing the efficacy and safety of LEV and LOR in SE. Consecutive patients with convulsive or subtle convulsive SE were randomized to LEV 20 mg/kg IV over 15 min or LOR 0.1 mg/kg over 2-4 min. Failure to control SE within 10 min of administration of one study drug was treated by the other study drug. The primary endpoint was clinical seizure cessation and secondary endpoints were 24 h freedom from seizure, hospital mortality, and adverse events. Our results are based on 79 patients. Both LEV and LOR were equally effective. In the first instance, the SE was controlled by LEV in 76.3% (29/38) and by LOR in 75.6% (31/41) of patients. In those resistant to the above regimen, LEV controlled SE in 70.0% (7/10) and LOR in 88.9% (8/9) patients. The 24-h freedom from seizure was also comparable: by LEV in 79.3% (23/29) and LOR in 67.7% (21/31). LOR was associated with significantly higher need of artificial ventilation and insignificantly higher frequency of hypotension. For the treatment of SE, LEV is an alternative to LOR and may be preferred in patients with respiratory compromise and hypotension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 125 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Other 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 54%
Neuroscience 11 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 24 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#8,269,042
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#2,072
of 5,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,530
of 140,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,157 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 140,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.