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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after intracranial venous thrombosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005501.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Price, Albrecht Günther, Joseph SK Kwan |
| Abstract |
Intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) commonly presents with seizures in the acute period, and some people may develop recurrent seizures in the long term. The prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the management of post-ICVT seizures is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal management of post-ICVT seizures. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures related to ICVT.(1) For the question of primary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have had an ICVT but have not had a seizure.(2) For the question of secondary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have had an ICVT and at least one seizure. For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 onwards) to 20 April 2015, and we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from the searches. We planned to include all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which participants with a diagnosis of ICVT were assigned to a treatment group (that is, receiving at least one AED) or control group (receiving placebo or no drug). Both review authors independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies had been included in the review, one review author would have extracted the data and another would have checked the extracted data. No relevant studies were found. There is no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to intracranial venous thrombosis. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to inform practice. Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 33 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 32% |
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 26 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,782,944
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,921
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,124
of 313,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#173
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. 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 313,804 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 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.