This systematic review of national or regional guidelines published in English aimed to better understand variance in pre-hospital and emergency department (ED) treatment of status epilepticus.
Systematic search of national or regional guidelines (January 2000 to February 2017) contained within PubMed and Google Scholar databases, and article reference lists. The search keywords were status epilepticus, prolonged seizure, treatment, and guideline.
356 articles were retrieved and 13 were selected according to the inclusion criteria. In all six pre-hospital guidelines, the preferred route of medication administration was to use alternatives to the intravenous route: all recommended buccal and intranasal midazolam; three also recommended intramuscular midazolam, and five recommended using rectal diazepam. All 11 ED guidelines described three phases in therapy. Intravenous medication, by phase, was indicated as such: initial phase - ten/11 guidelines recommended lorazepam, and eight/11 recommended diazepam; second phase - most (ten/11) guidelines recommended phenytoin, but other options were phenobarbital (nine/11), valproic acid (six/11), and either fosphenytoin or levetiracetam (each four/11); third phase - four/11 guidelines included the choice of repeating second phase therapy, whereas the other guidelines recommended using a variety of intravenous anesthetic agents (thiopental, midazolam, propofol, and pentobarbital).
All of the guidelines share a similar framework for management of status epilepticus. The choice in route of administration and drug type varied across guidelines. Hence, the adoption of a particular guideline should take account of local practice options in health service delivery.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
5
6%
Nursing and Health Professions
5
6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
4
5%
Immunology and Microbiology
2
2%
Other
8
10%
Unknown
29
35%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,677,786
of 27,712,151 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#224
of 981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,799
of 331,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#14
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,712,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 331,579 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
