↓ Skip to main content

Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment, versus placebo, deferred, or no treatment for first unprovoked seizure

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment, versus placebo, deferred, or no treatment for first unprovoked seizure
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007144.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maurizio A Leone, Giorgia Giussani, Sarah J Nevitt, Anthony G Marson, Ettore Beghi

Abstract

There is considerable disagreement about the risk of recurrence following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure. A decision about whether to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first seizure should be informed by information on the size of any reduction in risk of future seizures, the impact on long-term seizure remission, and the risk of adverse effects. To review the probability of seizure recurrence, seizure remission, mortality, and adverse effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment given immediately after the first seizure compared to controls, in children and adults. We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (accessed 13 October 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library September 2015, issue 9, accessed 13 October 2015), PUBMED (accessed 22 April 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 October 2015), EMBASE (accessed 22 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed 15 October 2015), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, accessed 13 October 2015). There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that could be blinded or unblinded. People of any age with a first unprovoked seizure of any type. Included studies compared participants receiving immediate antiepileptic treatment versus those receiving deferred treatment, those assigned to placebo, and those untreated. Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion in the review and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was classified in four categories according to the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event outcomes were expressed as Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Only one trial used a double-blind design, and the two largest studies were unblinded. Most of the recurrences were generalized tonic-clonic seizures, a major type of seizures that is easily recognised, which should reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias. After exclusion of uninformative papers, only six studies (nine reports) were selected for inclusion. For the two largest studies data were available for individual participant meta-analysis. Compared to controls, participants randomised to immediate treatment had a lower probability of relapse at one year (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58, high quality evidence), at five years (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; high quality evidence) and a higher probability of an immediate five-year remission (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54, high quality evidence). However there was no difference between immediate treatment and control in terms of five year remission at any time (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, high quality evidence). Antiepileptic drugs did not affect overall mortality after a first seizure (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, high quality evidence). Compared to deferred treatment (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.79, moderate quality evidence), treatment of the first seizure was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events. Moderate to low quality imprecise evidence was available for the association of treatment of the first seizure compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 14.50, 95% CI 1.93 to 108.76) and(RR 4.91, 95% CI 1.10 to 21.93) respectively) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of the first unprovoked seizure reduces the risk of a subsequent seizure but does not affect the proportion of patients in remission in the long-term. Antiepileptic drugs are associated with adverse events, and there is no evidence that they reduce mortality. In light of this review, the decision to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first unprovoked seizure should be individualized and based on patient preference, clinical, legal, and socio-cultural factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 26 28%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 18 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#695,495
of 13,041,449 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,285
of 10,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,735
of 263,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,041,449 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 263,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 62% of its contemporaries.