| Title |
Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis in brain injured patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-017-0507-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anis Chaari, Alaa Sayed Mohamed, Karim Abdelhakim, Vipin Kauts, William Francis Casey |
| Abstract |
Background The onset of early and/or late seizures in brain injured patients is associated with worse outcome. So far, phenytoin is the most commonly used antiepileptic drug to prevent seizures in this group of patients. Objective In the current metaanalysis, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of phenytoin versus levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in brain injured patients. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library Database by 2 investigators. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (295 patients). Data were extracted and the quality of each RCT was assessed. Results Levetiracetam was found to be more effective than phenytoin in seizure prophylaxis (OR = 0.23; CI 95% [0.09-0.56]; Q test p value = 0.18 and I(2) = 38%). A trend toward less serious side effects was also found in patients treated with levetiracetam (OR = 0.27; CI 95% [0.07-1.07]; Q test p value = 0.72 and I(2) = 0%). Conclusion Levetiracetam is more effective and safer than phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis in brain injured patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 25% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 29% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 February 2019.
All research outputs
#13,507,933
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#633
of 1,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,069
of 318,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,423 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.