↓ Skip to main content

Cannabis for pediatric epilepsy: protocol for a living systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2018
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Cannabis for pediatric epilepsy: protocol for a living systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0761-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesse Elliott, Deirdre DeJean, Tammy Clifford, Doug Coyle, Beth Potter, Becky Skidmore, Christine Alexander, Alexander E. Repetski, Bláthnaid McCoy, George A. Wells

Abstract

Pediatric epilepsy, including treatment-resistant forms, has a major effect on the quality of life, morbidity, and mortality of affected children. Interest has been growing in the use of medical cannabis as a treatment for pediatric epilepsy, yet there has been no comprehensive review of the benefits and harms of cannabis use in this population. In this systematic review, we will search for, synthesize, and assess the published and gray literature in order to provide usable and relevant information to parents, clinicians, and policy makers. We will perform a living systematic review of studies involving the use of cannabis to treat pediatric epilepsy. We will search the published and gray literature for studies involving children with any type of epilepsy taking any form of cannabis. Studies will be selected for inclusion by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome is seizure freedom. Secondary outcomes are seizure frequency, quality of life (child, caregiver), quality and quantity of sleep, status epilepticus, tonic-clonic seizures, death (all-cause, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy), gastrointestinal adverse events (diarrhea, vomiting), and visits to the emergency room. The quality of each included study will be assessed. If data are sufficient in quantity and sufficiently similar, we will conduct pairwise random-effects meta-analysis. We will repeat the literature search every 6 months to identify studies published after the previous search date. Sequential meta-analysis will be performed as necessary to update the review findings. Our review aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the available evidence to inform decisions about the use of cannabis in children with treatment-resistant epilepsy. The results of this review will be of use to parents, clinicians, and policy makers as they navigate this rapidly evolving area. PROSPERO CRD42018084755.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Other 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 56 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 21%
Psychology 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 70 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 03 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,227,183
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#354
of 2,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,077
of 341,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 341,267 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.