↓ Skip to main content

Comparative safety of anti-epileptic drugs during pregnancy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of congenital malformations and prenatal outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
36 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
346 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
Comparative safety of anti-epileptic drugs during pregnancy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of congenital malformations and prenatal outcomes
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0845-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Elise Cogo, Patricia Rios, Sharon E. Straus, Yaron Finkelstein, Ryan Kealey, Emily Reynen, Charlene Soobiah, Kednapa Thavorn, Brian Hutton, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Fatemeh Yazdi, Jennifer D’Souza, Heather MacDonald, Andrea C. Tricco

Abstract

Pregnant women with epilepsy frequently experience seizures related to pregnancy complications and are often prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to manage their symptoms. However, less is known about the comparative safety of AED exposure in utero. We aimed to compare the risk of congenital malformations (CMs) and prenatal outcomes of AEDs in infants/children who were exposed to AEDs in utero through a systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 15, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text papers for experimental and observational studies comparing mono- or poly-therapy AEDs versus control (no AED exposure) or other AEDs, then abstracted data and appraised the risk of bias. The primary outcome was incidence of major CMs, overall and by specific type (cardiac malformations, hypospadias, cleft lip and/or palate, club foot, inguinal hernia, and undescended testes). After screening 5305 titles and abstracts, 642 potentially relevant full-text articles, and 17 studies from scanning reference lists, 96 studies were eligible (n = 58,461 patients). Across all major CMs, many AEDs were associated with higher risk compared to control. For major CMs, ethosuximide (OR, 3.04; 95% CrI, 1.23-7.07), valproate (OR, 2.93; 95% CrI, 2.36-3.69), topiramate (OR, 1.90; 95% CrI, 1.17-2.97), phenobarbital (OR, 1.83; 95% CrI, 1.35-2.47), phenytoin (OR, 1.67; 95% CrI, 1.30-2.17), carbamazepine (OR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.10-1.71), and 11 polytherapies were significantly more harmful than control, but lamotrigine (OR, 0.96; 95% CrI, 0.72-1.25) and levetiracetam (OR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.43-1.16) were not. The newer generation AEDs, lamotrigine and levetiracetam, were not associated with significant increased risks of CMs compared to control, and were significantly less likely to be associated with children experiencing cardiac malformations than control. However, this does not mean that these agents are not harmful to infants/children exposed in utero. Counselling is advised concerning teratogenic risks when the prescription is written for a woman of childbearing age and before women continue with these agents when considering pregnancy, such as switching from polytherapy to monotherapy with evidence of lower risk and avoiding AEDs, such as valproate, that are consistently associated with CMs. These decisions must be balanced against the need for seizure control. PROSPERO CRD42014008925.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 346 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 345 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 13%
Student > Master 35 10%
Researcher 31 9%
Other 28 8%
Student > Postgraduate 23 7%
Other 61 18%
Unknown 124 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 34 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 6%
Neuroscience 14 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Other 34 10%
Unknown 136 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 299. 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 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#114,766
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#111
of 3,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,485
of 317,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#2
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 317,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.