↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anticonvulsants for cocaine dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
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

2 X users
1 Facebook page
3 Wikipedia pages


51 Dimensions

Readers on

316 Mendeley
Anticonvulsants for cocaine dependence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006754.pub4
Pubmed ID

Minozzi, Silvia, Cinquini, Michela, Amato, Laura, Davoli, Marina, Farrell, Michael F, Pani, Pier Paolo, Vecchi, Simona, Silvia Minozzi, Laura Amato, Marina Davoli, Michael F Farrell, Anelise ARL Lima Reisser, Pier Paolo Pani, Mauricio Silva de Lima, Bernardo GO Soares, Simona Vecchi, Michela Cinquini, Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group


Cocaine dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Although effective pharmacotherapy is available for alcohol and heroin dependence, none is currently available for cocaine dependence, despite two decades of clinical trials primarily involving antidepressant, anticonvulsivant and dopaminergic medications. Extensive consideration has been given to optimal pharmacological approaches to the treatment of individuals with cocaine dependence, and both dopamine antagonists and agonists have been considered. Anticonvulsants have been candidates for use in the treatment of addiction based on the hypothesis that seizure kindling-like mechanisms contribute to addiction. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticonvulsants for individuals with cocaine dependence. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1988 to June 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to June 2014), Web of Science (1991 to June 2014) and the reference lists of eligible articles. All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that focus on the use of anticonvulsant medications to treat individuals with cocaine dependence. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We included a total of 20 studies with 2068 participants. We studied the anticonvulsant drugs carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, phenytoin, tiagabine, topiramate and vigabatrin. All studies compared anticonvulsants versus placebo. Only one study had one arm by which the anticonvulsant was compared with the antidepressant desipramine. Upon comparison of anticonvulsant versus placebo, we found no significant differences for any of the efficacy and safety measures. Dropouts: risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05, 17 studies, 20 arms, 1695 participants, moderate quality of evidence. Use of cocaine: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02, nine studies, 11 arms, 867 participants, moderate quality of evidence; side effects: RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90, eight studies, 775 participants; craving: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.09, seven studies, eight arms, 428 participants, low quality of evidence. Although caution is needed when results from a limited number of small clinical trials are assessed, no current evidence supports the clinical use of anticonvulsant medications in the treatment of patients with cocaine dependence. Although the findings of new trials will improve the quality of study results, especially in relation to specific medications, anticonvulsants as a category cannot be considered first-, second- or third-line treatment for cocaine dependence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 316 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 313 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 18%
Researcher 30 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 9%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Other 19 6%
Other 70 22%
Unknown 84 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 28%
Psychology 37 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 3%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 99 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 266,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 266,268 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 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.