You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Randomized trial of lacosamide versus fosphenytoin for nonconvulsive seizures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Neurology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/ana.25249 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aatif M. Husain, Jong W. Lee, Bradley J. Kolls, Lawrence J. Hirsch, Jonathan J. Halford, Puneet K. Gupta, Yafa Minazad, Jennifer M. Jones, Suzette M. LaRoche, Susan T. Herman, Christa B. Swisher, Saurabh R. Sinha, Adriana Palade, Keith E. Dombrowski, William B. Gallentine, Cecil D. Hahn, Elizabeth E. Gerard, Manjushri Bhapkar, Yuliya Lokhnygina, M. Brandon Westover, for the Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium |
| Abstract |
The optimal treatment of nonconvulsive seizures in critically ill patients is uncertain. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of antiseizure drugs (ASD) lacosamide (LCM) and fosphenytoin (fPHT) in this population. The Treatment of Recurrent Electrographic Nonconvulsive Seizures (TRENdS) study was a non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter, randomized treatment trial of patients diagnosed with NCS by continuous electroencephalography (cEEG). Treatment was randomized to IV LCM 400 mg or IV fPHT 20 mg PE/kg. The primary endpoint was absence of electrographic seizures for 24 hours as determined by one blinded EEG reviewer. The frequency with which NCS control was achieved in each arm was compared, and the 90% confidence interval (CI) was determined. Non-inferiority of LCM to fPHT was to be concluded if the lower bound of the CI for relative risk was above 0.8. Seventy-four subjects were enrolled (37 LCM, 37 fPHT) between August 21, 2012 and December 20, 2013. The mean age was 63.6 years; 38 were women. Seizures were controlled in 19 of 30 (63.3%) subjects in the LCM arm and 16 of 32 (50%) subjects in the fPHT arm. LCM was non-inferior to fPHT (p = 0.02), with a risk ratio of 1.27 (90% CI=0.88, 1.83). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) were similar in both arms, occurring in 9/35 (25.7%) of LCM and 9/37 (24.3%) of fPHT subjects (p=1.0). LCM was non-inferior to fPHT in controlling NCS, and TEAE were comparable. LCM can be considered an alternative to fPHT in the treatment of NCS detected on cEEG. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 15% |
| Spain | 4 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Chile | 2 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 74% |
| Scientists | 4 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 25% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 42% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 02 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,462,420
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Neurology
#636
of 5,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,042
of 342,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Neurology
#12
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 342,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.