↓ Skip to main content

Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005502.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cerian F Jackson, Selina M Makin, Anthony G Marson, Michael Kerr

Abstract

Approximately 30% of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to drug treatment and continue to experience seizures whilst taking one or more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Several non-pharmacological interventions that may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to AEDs are available for refractory patients. In view of the fact that seizures in people with intellectual disabilities are often complex and refractory to pharmacological interventions, it is evident that good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess the efficacy of alternatives or adjuncts to pharmacological interventions.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review (Beavis 2007) published in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4). To assess data derived from randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.Non-pharmacological interventions include, but are not limited to, the following.• Surgical procedures.• Specialised diets, for example, the ketogenic diet, or vitamin and folic acid supplementation.• Psychological interventions for patients or for patients and carers/parents, for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback and educational intervention.• Yoga.• Acupuncture.• Relaxation therapy (e.g. music therapy). For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (19 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO (19 August 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 August 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 19 August 2014). Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted study data. One study is included in this review. When two surgical procedures were compared, results indicated that corpus callosotomy with anterior temporal lobectomy was more effective than anterior temporal lobectomy alone in improving quality of life and performance on IQ tests among people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. No evidence was found to support superior benefit in seizure control for either intervention. This is the only study of its kind and was rated as having an overall unclear risk of bias. The previous update (December 2010) identified one RCT in progress. The study authors have confirmed that they are aiming to publish by the end of 2015; therefore this study (Bjurulf 2008) has not been included in the current review. This review highlights the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials conducted to assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on seizure and behavioural outcomes in people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 29%
Psychology 4 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%

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 23 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,349,832
of 13,716,038 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,840
of 10,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,030
of 261,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,716,038 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 10,723 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 64% 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 261,756 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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 52% of its contemporaries.