| Title |
Reducing the Risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Neurology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11940-018-0527-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lance Watkins, Rohit Shankar |
| Abstract |
Recent reports have highlighted an increase in the number of epilepsy-related deaths. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is thought to be the number one cause of death in chronic epilepsy. This review provides a summary of the current evidence of how to communicate, stratify, and mitigate known risk factors for SUDEP. There is now a clearer understanding of the possible pathological mechanisms that contribute to SUDEP. SUDEP is the culmination of multifactorial predisposing and precipitating factors and has been linked to particular candidate genes. A number of static and modifiable risk factors for SUDEP have been consistently identified. Recent guidance has emphasised the importance of communicating SUDEP risk to individuals at the earliest appropriate time. SUDEP risk assessment should be integral to the care of individuals with epilepsy. The use of evidence-based risk assessment tools may provide an opportunity to communicate identified risks in a person-centred holistic way. There is increasing evidence to support the use of wearable seizure monitoring devices to help reduce the frequency and impact of convulsive seizures, perhaps the number one risk factor for SUDEP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 8 | 67% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 9 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,254,596
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#91
of 498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,840
of 342,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 342,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.