↓ Skip to main content

Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008907.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xian-Chao Chang, Hai Yuan, Yi Wang, Hui-Qin Xu, Wen-Ke Hong, Rong-Yuan Zheng

Abstract

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12.The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, but up to 30% of people continue to have seizures despite several regimens of antiepileptic drugs. In this review, we summarized the current evidence regarding eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ESL when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. The searches for the original review were run in November 2011. Subsequently, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (6 December 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11) and MEDLINE (1946 to 6 December 2016). There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of ESL and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies. Randomized placebo controlled double-blind add-on trials of ESL in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, and drug interactions. Primary analyses were by intention to treat (ITT). The dose-response relationship was evaluated in regression models. We included five trials (1799 participants) rated at low risk of bias; all studies were funded by BIAL. The overall risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.71 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.05). Dose regression analysis showed evidence that ESL reduced seizure frequency with an increase in efficacy with increasing doses of ESL. ESL was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.68). Participants were more likely to have ESL withdrawn for adverse effects (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.96) but not for any reason (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.64). The following adverse effects were significantly associated with ESL: dizziness (RR 2.81, 99% CI 1.86 to 4.27); nausea (RR 2.61, 99% CI 1.36 to 5.01); diplopia (RR 4.14, 99% CI 1.74 to 9.84); somnolence (RR 1.71, 99% CI 1.11 to 2.63) and vomiting (RR 3.30, 99% CI 1.34 to 8.13). Overall the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to high. ESL reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. The trials included in this review were of short-term duration and focused on adults. One new trial has been included in this update, but the conclusions are unchanged.

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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,921,493
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,878
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,164
of 311,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#196
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 311,142 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.