↓ Skip to main content

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists for acute stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists for acute stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009622.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Liu, Lu-Ning Wang, Xin Ma, Xunming Ji

Abstract

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebrovascular disease. However, the sedative effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in people with acute stroke, due to the potential risk of stupor. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013, and previously updated in 2014. To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (accessed March 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 3, part of the Cochrane Library (accessed March 2016), MEDLINE (from 1949 to March 2016), Embase (from 1980 to March 2016), CINAHL (from 1982 to March 2016), AMED (from 1985 to March 2016), and 11 Chinese databases (accessed March 2016). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for people with acute stroke (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the primary outcomes of efficacy and safety. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias. We included five trials with 3838 participants (3758 analyzed). The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with an unclear risk for selection bias only. Four trials (N = 2909) measured death and dependency at three months for chlormethiazole versus placebo; pooled results did not find a significant difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.11). One trial (N = 849) measured this outcome for diazepam versus placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07). The most frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95; two trials; N = 2527) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46; two trials; N = 2527). This review provides moderate-quality evidence that fails to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of people with acute stroke. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of participants with total anterior circulation syndrome are required to determine if there are benefits for this subgroup. Somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 24%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 19%

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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,204,508
of 14,656,415 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,083
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,747
of 267,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,656,415 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 267,489 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.