↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Immediate-release versus controlled-release carbamazepine in the treatment of epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

3 tweeters
1 Facebook page
5 Wikipedia pages


14 Dimensions

Readers on

105 Mendeley
Immediate-release versus controlled-release carbamazepine in the treatment of epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007124.pub5
Pubmed ID

Graham Powell, Matthew Saunders, Alexandra Rigby, Anthony G Marson


Carbamazepine (CBZ) is a commonly used drug for epilepsy that is associated with troublesome adverse events including dizziness, double vision, drowsiness, poor co-ordination and unsteadiness. These adverse events often occur during peaks in drug plasma concentration. These adverse events may limit the daily dose of CBZ that can be tolerated and reduce the chances of seizure control in patients who require high doses. A controlled-release formulation of CBZ delivers the same dose over a longer period of time when compared to a standard immediate-release formulation, thereby reducing post-dose peaks in CBZ plasma concentration and potentially reducing adverse events.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2014. To determine the efficacy of immediate-release CBZ (IR CBZ) versus controlled-release CBZ (CR CBZ) in patients diagnosed with epilepsy.The following review questions were investigated.(1) For newly diagnosed patients commencing CBZ, how do IR and CR formulations compare for efficacy and tolerability?(2) For patients on established treatment with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events, what is the effect on seizure control and the tolerability of a switch to a CR formulation versus remaining on the IR formulation? We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE (Ovid) from inception to 30 August 2016. Randomised controlled trials comparing IR CBZ to CR CBZ in patients commencing monotherapy and patients presently treated with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events.Primary outcome measures included measures of seizure frequency, incidence of adverse events, proportion of patients with treatment failure and quality of life measures. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data and recorded relevant information on a standardised data extraction form. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the methodological quality of included studies.The heterogeneity of the included trials with respect to the reporting of outcomes resulted in only a narrative, descriptive analysis being possible for both the categorical and time-to-event data. Ten trials (296 participants) fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this review. Only one study had a low risk of bias. Two studies had a high risk of bias and the rest of the studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. One trial included patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and nine included patients on treatment with IR CBZ.Eight trials reported heterogeneous measures of seizure frequency with conflicting results. A statistically significant difference was observed in only one trial, with patients prescribed CR CBZ experiencing fewer seizures than patients prescribed IR CBZ.Nine trials reported measures of adverse events. There was a trend in favour of CR CBZ with four trials reporting a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared to IR CBZ. A further two trials reported fewer adverse events with CR CBZ but the reduction was not statistically significant. One trial found no difference in adverse events, and another trial reported more adverse events in the CR CBZ group than the IR CBZ group, although the increase was not statistically significant. For this update no new eligible studies were identified and the conclusions drawn from the initial review remain unchanged.At present, data from trials do not confirm or refute an advantage for CR CBZ over IR CBZ for seizure frequency or adverse events in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.For trials involving epilepsy patients already prescribed IR CBZ, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the superiority of CR CBZ with respect to seizure frequency.There is a trend for CR CBZ to be associated with fewer adverse events when compared to IR CBZ. A change to CR CBZ may therefore be a worthwhile strategy in patients with acceptable seizure control on IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events. The included trials were of small size and of poor methodological quality limiting the validity of this conclusion.Randomised controlled trials comparing CR CBZ to IR CBZ and using clinically relevant outcomes are required to inform the choice of CBZ preparation for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 20%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 38 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Psychology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 41 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 April 2023.
All research outputs
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 419,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 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 12,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 419,352 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.