↓ Skip to main content

Stiripentol for focal refractory epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Stiripentol for focal refractory epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009887.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Brigo, Monica Storti, Stanley C Igwe

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2014 (Issue 1). For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, seizures are not controlled by current treatments. Stiripentol is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) that was developed in France and was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2007 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome as adjunctive therapy with valproate and clobazam, with promising effects. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol as add-on treatment for patients with focal refractory epilepsy who are taking AEDs. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (10 August 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; August 2015, Issue 8)and MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 10 August 2015). We contacted Biocodex (the manufacturer of stiripentol) and epilepsy experts to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials. Randomised controlled add-on trials of stiripentol in patients with focal refractory epilepsy. Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and changes in quality of life. On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. However, we did include one study from the earlier review (32 children with focal epilepsy). This study adopted a 'responder enriched' design and found no clear evidence of a reduction in seizure frequency (≥ 50% seizure reduction) (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.82) nor evidence of seizure freedom (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.43) when add-on stiripentol was compared with placebo. Stiripentol led to a greater risk of adverse effects considered as a whole (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.47). When specific adverse events were considered, confidence intervals were very wide and showed the possibility of substantial increases and small reductions in risks of neurological (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.88 to 8.01) or gastrointestinal adverse effects (RR 11.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 189.36). Researchers noted no clear reduction in the risk of study withdrawal (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), which was high in both groups (35.0% in add-on placebo and 53.3% in stiripentol group). The external validity of this study was limited because only responders to stiripentol (i.e. patients experiencing a ≥ 50% decrease in seizure frequency compared with baseline) were included in the randomised add-on placebo-controlled double-blind phase. Furthermore, carry-over and withdrawal effects probably influenced outcomes related to seizure frequency. Very limited information derived from the only included study shows that adverse effects considered as a whole seemed to occur significantly more often with add-on stiripentol than with add-on placebo. Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, we have made no changes to the conclusions of this update as presented in the initial review. We can draw no conclusions to support the use of stiripentol as add-on treatment for focal refractory epilepsy. Additional large, randomised, well-conducted trials are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 28%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Unspecified 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 4 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,391,309
of 25,473,687 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,956
of 13,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,391
of 294,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#235
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,473,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 294,360 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.