↓ Skip to main content

Topiramate monotherapy for juvenile myoclonic epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Topiramate monotherapy for juvenile myoclonic epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010008.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Liu, Lu-Ning Wang, Yu-Ping Wang

Abstract

Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). However, there are no current systematic reviews to determine the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in people with JME. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2015. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of JME. For the latest update, on 21 February 2017 we searched Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating topiramate monotherapy versus placebo or other AED treatment for people with JME, with the outcomes of proportion of responders or experiencing adverse events (AEs). 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 three studies with 83 participants. For efficacy, a greater proportion of participants in the topiramate group had a 50% or more reduction in primarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) compared with participants in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between topiramate versus valproate in participants responding with a 50% or more reduction in myoclonic seizures or in PGTCS or seizure-free. Concerning tolerability, we ranked AEDs associated with topiramate as moderate-to-severe, while we ranked 59% of AEDs linked to valproate as severe complaints. Moreover, systemic toxicity scores were higher in the valproate group than the topiramate group. We judged the quality of the evidence from the studies to be very low. Since the last version of this review we found no new studies. This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support topiramate for the treatment of people with JME. Based on the current limited available data, topiramate seems to be better tolerated than valproate, but there were no more benefits of efficacy in topiramate compared with valproate. In the future, well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to test the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 30%
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Librarian 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Computer Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,599,540
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,372
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,054
of 263,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#196
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 263,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.