↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous immunoglobulins for epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
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.
Title
Intravenous immunoglobulins for epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008557.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

JinSong Geng, JianCheng Dong, Youping Li, Hengjian Ni, Kui Jiang, Li Li Shi, GuoHua Wang

Abstract

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, with an estimated incidence of 50 per 100,000 persons. People with epilepsy may present with various types of immunological abnormalities, such as low serum immunoglobulin A (IgA) levels, lack of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass and identification of certain types of antibodies. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment may represent a valuable approach and its efficacy has important implications for epilepsy management. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2011. To examine the effects of IVIg on the frequency and duration of seizures, quality of life and adverse effects when used as monotherapy or as add-on treatment for people with epilepsy. For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (2 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2 February 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 2 February 2017), Web of Science (1898 to 2 February 2017), ISRCTN registry (2 February 2017), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 2 February 2017), the US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov (2 February 2017), and reference lists of articles. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of IVIg as monotherapy or add-on treatment in people with epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Outcomes included percentage of people rendered seizure-free, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and quality of life. We included one study (61 participants). The included study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial which compared the treatment efficacy of IVIg as an add-on with a placebo add-on in patients with refractory epilepsy. There was no significant difference between IVIg and placebo in 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. The study reported a statistically significant effect for global assessment in favour of IVIg. No adverse effects were demonstrated. We found no randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of IVIg monotherapy for epilepsy. Overall, the included study was rated as low/unclear risk of bias. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was rated as low. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions regarding the efficacy of IVIg as a treatment for epilepsy. Further randomized controlled trials are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 3 9%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Psychology 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,556,554
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,802
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,125
of 326,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 326,276 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 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.