↓ Skip to main content

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006245.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel Fleeman, Peter M Bradley

Abstract

In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children and parents; teenagers and parents; or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,. While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 142 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Psychology 13 9%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 35 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,902,533
of 15,079,507 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,493
of 11,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,289
of 278,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,079,507 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 278,375 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.