↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Zonisamide for neuropathic pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Zonisamide for neuropathic pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011241.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moore, R Andrew, Wiffen, Philip J, Derry, Sheena, Lunn, Michael P T

Abstract

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed. To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews. We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries. Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier evidence derived from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment. The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 108 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Other 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 25 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,187,241
of 10,451,113 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,966
of 9,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,737
of 224,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#206
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,451,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 224,677 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.