↓ Skip to main content

Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010247.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjay Pandey, Chaturbhuj Rathore, Benedict D Michael

Abstract

Viral encephalitis is characterised by diverse clinical and epidemiological features. Seizures are an important clinical manifestation and are associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Patients may have seizures during the acute illness or they may develop after recovery. There are no recommendations regarding the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures in patients with viral encephalitis.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of seizures in viral encephalitis. We had intended to answer the following questions.1. Do antiepileptic drugs used routinely as primary prophylaxis for all patients with suspected or proven viral encephalitis reduce the risk of seizures during the acute illness and reduce neurological morbidity and mortality?2. Do antiepileptic drugs used routinely as secondary prophylaxis for all patients who have had at least one seizure due to suspected or proven viral encephalitis reduce the risk of further seizures during the acute illness and reduce neurological morbidity and mortality? For the latest version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (11 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 11 April 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 11 April 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 11 April 2016), and ClinicalTrials.gov (11 April 2016). We did not impose any language restrictions. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which patients were assigned to a treatment or control group (placebo or no drug). One review author (SP) searched the publications by title, abstract and keywords, and decided on their suitability for the review. For any studies where their suitability was unclear, the co-authors (CR, BM) were consulted. The co-authors (CR, BM) independently evaluated the selected studies. Since there were no included studies, we carried out no data analysis. We did not find any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of antiepileptic drugs with placebo (or no drug) for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis. We identified two studies from the literature search where different antiepileptic drugs were used in patients with viral encephalitis, however both failed to meet the inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the routine use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis. There is a need for adequately powered randomised controlled trials in patients with viral encephalitis to assess the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of seizures, which is an important clinical problem.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Unspecified 8 10%
Other 23 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 49%
Unspecified 14 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 11 14%

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 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,177,176
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,787
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,713
of 264,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 264,731 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 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.