↓ 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, December 2015
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006245.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel Fleeman, Peter M Bradley, Bruce Lindsay

Abstract

Epilepsy care for children has been criticised for its lack of impact. Various service models and strategies have been developed in response to perceived inadequacies in care provision for children and their families. To compare the effectiveness of any specialised or dedicated intervention for the care of children with epilepsy and their families to the effectiveness of usual care. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013,Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1988 to week 25, 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to 11 December 2013) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 11 December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies.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), controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. Each review author independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. We included five interventions reported in seven study reports (of which only four studies of three interventions were designed as RCTs) in this review. They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children, 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 each study had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed) and no single programme was independently evaluated by more than one study. 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. No study appeared to have demonstrated any detrimental effects but the evidence in favour of any single programme was insufficient to make it possible to recommend one programme rather than another. More studies, carried out by independent research teams, are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 27%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 38%
Psychology 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Unspecified 8 9%
Other 14 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,167,055
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,441
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,616
of 350,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 350,405 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 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 53% of its contemporaries.