↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of epilepsy for people with Alzheimer's disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Treatment of epilepsy for people with Alzheimer's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011922.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Liu, Lu-Ning Wang, Li-Yong Wu, Yu-Ping Wang

Abstract

Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with AD. There are pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for epilepsy in people with AD. There are no current systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the treatment. This review aims to review those different modalities. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the treatment of epilepsy for people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) (including sporadic AD and dominantly inherited AD). We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (1 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1 February 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1 February 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 February 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 In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials' registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical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 randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials investigating treatment for epilepsy in people with AD, with the outcomes of proportion of seizure freedom or experiencing adverse events. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to the limited available data. We included one randomised controlled trial with 95 participants. Concerning the proportion of participants with seizure freedom, no significant differences were found in levetiracetam (LEV) versus lamotrigine (LTG) (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.71), in levetiracetam versus phenobarbital (PB) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.19), or in LTG versus PB (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.02). It seemed that LEV could improve cognition and LTG could relieve depression; while PB and LTG could worsen cognition, and LEV and PB could worsen mood. We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support LEV, PB and LTG for the treatment of epilepsy in people with AD. Regarding the efficacy and tolerability, no significant differences were found between LEV, PB and LTG. In the future, large randomised, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials are required to determine the efficacy and tolerability of treatment for epilepsy in people with AD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Student > Master 8 20%
Librarian 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,505,931
of 14,597,557 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,067
of 11,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,744
of 289,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,597,557 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 289,328 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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.