↓ Skip to main content

Psychological and behavioural treatments for adults with non-epileptic attack disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 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
Psychological and behavioural treatments for adults with non-epileptic attack disorder
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006370.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jayne Martlew, Jennifer Pulman, Anthony G Marson

Abstract

Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, also known as non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD), have the outward appearance of epilepsy in the absence of physiological or electroencephalographic correlates. Non-epileptic seizures can occur in isolation or in combination with epileptic seizures. The development and maintenance of non-epileptic seizures has been well documented and there is a growing literature on the treatment of non-epileptic seizures which includes non-psychological (including anti-anxiety and antidepressant pharmacological treatment) and psychological therapies (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy and paradoxical therapy). Various treatment methodologies have been tried with variable success. The purpose of this Cochrane review was to establish the evidence base for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures with behavioural and psychological therapies only.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 191 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 21%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 28 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 33%
Psychology 42 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 36 19%

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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,656,910
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,128
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,830
of 272,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#190
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 272,209 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.