↓ Skip to main content

Felbamate as an add-on therapy for refractory partial epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Felbamate as an add-on therapy for refractory partial epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008295.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Li Shi, JianCheng Dong, HengJian Ni, JinSong Geng, Taixiang Wu

Abstract

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 7, 2014) on 'Felbamate as an add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy'. Epilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurologic disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available drugs. Felbamate is one of the second-generation antiepileptic drugs and we have assessed its effects as an add-on therapy to standard drugs in this review. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with refractory partial-onset epilepsy. For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, up to 20 October 2016. There were no language and time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies. Randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with refractory partial-onset seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel or cross-over design. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. We resolved disagreements by discussion. If disagreements persisted, the third review author arbitrated. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life. We included four randomised controlled trials with a total of 236 participants. Two trials were parallel design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. Two studies were at an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. These two studies did not include any description of their methods for outcome assessment and performance blinding (i.e. participants or doctors). Two studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the results. Only one study reported 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. One study reported absolute and percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo, P values were 0.046 and 0.018, respectively. One study reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo, but there were no P values. Adverse effects rates were higher during the felbamate period than the placebo period, particularly headache, nausea and dizziness. In view of the methodological deficiencies, limited number of individual studies and differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with refractory partial-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 65%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 6 12%

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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,428,585
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,248
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,936
of 262,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#214
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 262,530 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.