↓ Skip to main content

Gabapentin Enacarbil

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Gabapentin Enacarbil
Published in
CNS Drugs, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s40263-012-0020-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley J. Scott

Abstract

Oral gabapentin enacarbil is approved in adult patients for the treatment of moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS) [featured indication] and the management of postherpetic neuralgia. In the 12-week Patient Improvements in Vital Outcomes following Treatment (PIVOT) RLS I and II trials in adult patients with moderate to severe primary RLS (n > 500 total evaluable), once-daily gabapentin enacarbil 600 or 1,200 mg significantly improved mean International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) total scores compared with placebo, with significantly higher investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) responder rates in gabapentin enacarbil groups than in placebo groups. Improvements in other sleep outcomes (assessed using various scales) also generally favoured gabapentin enacarbil treatment. These data are supported by results from a polysomnography, crossover (two 4-week treatment periods) trial (n > 100 evaluable). Improvements in RLS symptoms with gabapentin enacarbil were maintained in a 52-week extension study of clinical trials, including PIVOT RLS I and II. The longer-term efficacy of gabapentin enacarbil in patients with moderate to severe RLS was also demonstrated in the 36-week PIVOT RLS Maintenance study and a 52-week noncomparative study conducted in Japan. Gabapentin enacarbil was generally well tolerated in adult patients with RLS participating in short- and longer-term clinical trials. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence/sedation and dizziness. Most adverse events were of mild to moderate severity, with relatively few patients discontinuing treatment because of an adverse event.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,452,489
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#674
of 1,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,698
of 276,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#14
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 276,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.