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 |
Potential Clinical Benefits of CBD-Rich Cannabis Extracts Over Purified CBD in Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy: Observational Data Meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2018.00759 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabricio A. Pamplona, Lorenzo Rolim da Silva, Ana Carolina Coan |
| Abstract |
This meta-analysis paper describes the analysis of observational clinical studies on the treatment of refractory epilepsy with cannabidiol (CBD)-based products. Beyond attempting to establish the safety and efficacy of such products, we also investigated if there is enough evidence to assume any difference in efficacy between CBD-rich extracts compared to purified CBD products. The systematic search took place in February/2017 and updated in December/2017 using the keywords "epilepsy" or "Dravet" or "Lennox-Gastaut" or "CDKL5" combined with "Cannabis," "cannabinoid," "cannabidiol," or "CBD" resulting in 199 papers. The qualitative assessment resulted in 11 valid references, with an average impact factor of 8.1 (ranging from 1.4 to 47.8). The categorical data of a total of 670 patients were analyzed by Fischer test. The average daily dose ranged between 1 and 50 mg/kg, with treatment length from 3 to 12 months (mean 6.2 months). Two thirds of patients reported improvement in the frequency of seizures (399/622, 64%). There were more reports of improvement from patients treated with CBD-rich extracts (318/447, 71%) than patients treated with purified CBD (81/223, 36%), with statistical significance (p < 0.0001). Nevertheless, when the standard clinical threshold of a "50% reduction or more in the frequency of seizures" was applied, only 39% of the individuals were considered "responders," and there was no difference (p = 0.56) between treatments with CBD-rich extracts (97/255, 38%) and purified CBD (94/223, 42%). Patients treated with CBD-rich extracts reported lower average dose (6.1 mg/kg/day) than those using purified CBD (27.1 mg/kg/day). The reports of mild (109/285 vs. 291/346, p < 0.0001) and severe (23/285 vs. 77/346, p < 0.0001) adverse effects were more frequent in products containing purified CBD than in CBD-rich extracts. CBD-rich extracts seem to present a better therapeutic profile than purified CBD, at least in this population of patients with refractory epilepsy. The roots of this difference is likely due to synergistic effects of CBD with other phytocompounds (aka Entourage effect), but this remains to be confirmed in controlled clinical studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 187 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 28 | 15% |
| Japan | 19 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 7% |
| Chile | 12 | 6% |
| Canada | 7 | 4% |
| Australia | 6 | 3% |
| Spain | 5 | 3% |
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 82 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 163 | 87% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 19 | 10% |
| Scientists | 4 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 408 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 408 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 71 | 17% |
| Researcher | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 26 | 6% |
| Other | 67 | 16% |
| Unknown | 128 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 43 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 25 | 6% |
| Other | 87 | 21% |
| Unknown | 137 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 319. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#107,879
of 25,755,403 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#37
of 14,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,129
of 349,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#1
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,755,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 349,028 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 293 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.