↓ Skip to main content

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for convulsive status epilepticus in children (protocol): Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT) - a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, June 2017
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
A multicentre randomised controlled trial of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for convulsive status epilepticus in children (protocol): Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT) - a PREDICT study
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12887-017-0887-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart R. Dalziel, Jeremy Furyk, Megan Bonisch, Ed Oakley, Meredith Borland, Jocelyn Neutze, Susan Donath, Cynthia Sharpe, Simon Harvey, Andrew Davidson, Simon Craig, Natalie Phillips, Shane George, Arjun Rao, Nicholas Cheng, Michael Zhang, Kam Sinn, Amit Kochar, Christine Brabyn, Franz E. Babl, On Behalf of the PREDICT research network

Abstract

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening childhood neurological emergency. Despite this, there is a lack of high quality evidence supporting medication use after first line benzodiazepines, with current treatment protocols based solely on non-experimental evidence and expert opinion. The current standard of care, phenytoin, is only 60% effective, and associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anti-convulsant, levetiracetam, can be given faster, is potentially more efficacious, with a more tolerable side effect profile. The primary aim of the study presented in this protocol is to determine whether intravenous (IV) levetiracetam or IV phenytoin is the better second line treatment for the emergency management of CSE in children. 200 children aged between 3 months and 16 years presenting to 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand with CSE, that has failed to stop with first line benzodiazepines, will be enrolled into this multicentre open randomised controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to 40 mg/kg IV levetiracetam infusion over 5 min or 20 mg/kg IV phenytoin infusion over 20 min. The primary outcome for the study is clinical cessation of seizure activity five minutes following the completion of the infusion of the study medication. Blinded confirmation of the primary outcome will occur with the primary outcome assessment being video recorded and assessed by a primary outcome assessment team blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes include: Clinical cessation of seizure activity at two hours; Time to clinical seizure cessation; Need for rapid sequence induction; Intensive care unit (ICU) admission; Serious adverse events; Length of Hospital/ICU stay; Health care costs; Seizure status/death at one-month post discharge. This paper presents the background, rationale, and design for a randomised controlled trial comparing levetiracetam to phenytoin in children presenting with CSE in whom benzodiazepines have failed. This study will provide the first high quality evidence for management of paediatric CSE post first-line benzodiazepines. Prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12615000129583 (11/2/2015). UTN U1111-1144-5272. ConSEPT protocol version 4 (12/12/2014).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Other 12 10%
Student > Master 12 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Unspecified 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,471,631
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#348
of 3,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,281
of 316,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#8
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 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 3,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 316,706 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.