↓ Skip to main content

Pregabalin for essential tremor

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Pregabalin for essential tremor
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009682.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisa Bruno, Alessandra Nicoletti, Graziella Quattrocchi, Graziella Filippini, Carlo Colosimo, Mario Zappia

Abstract

Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they may be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it is worth evaluating the treatment alternatives for essential tremor. Some specialists have suggested that pregabalin could be a potentially useful agent, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety. To assess the effects of pregabalin versus placebo or other treatment for essential tremor in adults. We performed a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials up to December 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin versus placebo or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes. Two reviewers independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias of the body of evidence, and we used inverse variance methods to analyse continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared the mean difference between treatment groups, and we combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and risk differences We used Review Manager software for data management and analysis. We only found one study eligible for this review (22 participants). We assessed the risk of bias for most domains as unclear. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared to placebo, patients treated with pregabalin showed no significant improvement of motor tasks on the 36-point subscale of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) (MD -2.15 points; 95% CI -9.16 to 4.86) or on the 32-point functional abilities subscale of the TRS (MD -0.66 points; 95% CI -2.90 to 1.58).The limited evidence showed no difference in study withdrawal (Mantel-Haenszel RD -0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.30) and presentation of adverse events between pregabalin and placebo (Mantel-Haenszel RD 0.18; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.50). The effects of pregabalin for treating essential tremor are uncertain because the quality of the evidence is very low. One small study did not highlight any effect of this treatment; however, the high risk of bias and the lack of other studies on this topic limit further conclusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Other 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,753,243
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,128
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,686
of 285,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 285,398 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.