↓ Skip to main content

Antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of infants with severe myoclonic epilepsy.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of infants with severe myoclonic epilepsy.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010483.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigo, Francesco, Igwe, Stanley C

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2013.Severe myoclonic epilepsy in infants (SMEI), also known as Dravet syndrome, is a rare, refractory form of epilepsy, for which stiripentol (STP) has been recently licensed as add-on therapy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of STP and other antiepileptic drug treatments (including ketogenic diet) for patients with SMEI. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (27 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 27 April 2015) and MEDLINE (1946 to 27 April 2015). We systematically searched the online trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the bibliographies of identified studies for additional references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings and imposed no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials; double- or single-blinded or unblinded trials; and parallel-group studies. Administration of at least one antiepileptic drug therapy given singly (monotherapy) or in combination (add-on therapy) compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment. Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to predefined criteria, extracted relevant data and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse effects, proportion of dropouts and quality of life. We assessed outcomes by using a Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). In the updated search, we identified no additional studies suitable for inclusion. We found no RCTs assessing drugs other than STP. The previous version of this review included two RCTs evaluating use of STP (total of 64 children). Both studies were generally at unclear risk of bias. A significantly higher proportion of participants had 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency in the STP group compared with the placebo group (22/33 vs 2/31; RR 10.40, 95% CI 2.64 to 40.87). A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved seizure freedom in the STP group compared with the placebo group (12/33 vs 1/31; RR 7.93, 95% CI 1.52 to 41.21). Investigators found no significant differences in proportions of dropouts from the STP group compared with the placebo group (2/33 vs 8/31; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03). Only one study explicitly reported the occurrence of side effects, noting that higher proportions of participants in the STP group experienced side effects than in the placebo group (100% vs 25%; RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.81 to 7.67). Data derived from two small RCTs indicate that STP is significantly better than placebo with regards to 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom. Adverse effects occurred more frequently with STP. Additional adequately powered studies with long-term follow-up should be conducted to unequivocally establish the long-term efficacy and tolerability of STP in the treatment of patients with SMEI.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 29%
Unspecified 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 57%
Unspecified 2 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 14%

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 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,263,819
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,481
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,722
of 251,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 251,956 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.