↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Clobazam monotherapy for focal or generalized seizures

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 tweeters
3 Wikipedia pages


5 Dimensions

Readers on

70 Mendeley
Clobazam monotherapy for focal or generalized seizures
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009258.pub3
Pubmed ID

Ravindra Arya, Nisha Giridharan, Vidhu Anand, Sushil K Garg


This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2014. There is a need to expand monotherapy options available to a clinician for the treatment of new focal or generalized seizures. A Cochrane systematic review for clobazam monotherapy is expected to define its place in the treatment of new-onset or untreated seizures and highlight gaps in evidence. To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, tolerability and safety of clobazam as monotherapy in people with new-onset focal or generalized seizures. For the latest update we searched the following databases on 19 March 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946- ), BIOSIS Previews (1969- ), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no language restrictions. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing clobazam monotherapy versus placebo or other anti-seizure medication in people with two or more unprovoked seizures or single acute symptomatic seizure requiring short-term continuous anti-seizure medication, were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome measure was time on allocated treatment (retention time), reflecting both efficacy and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included short- and long-term effectiveness measures, tolerability, quality of life, and tolerance measures. Two authors independently extracted the data. We identified three trials fulfilling the review criteria, which included 206 participants. None of the identified studies reported the preselected primary outcome measure. A meta-analysis was not possible. Lack of detail regarding allocation concealment and a high risk of performance and detection bias in two studies prompted us to downgrade the quality of evidence (by using the GRADE approach) for some of our results due to risk of bias.Regarding retention at 12 months, we detected no evidence of a statistically significant difference between clobazam and carbamazepine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence that clobazam led to better retention compared with phenytoin (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.90). We could not determine whether participants receiving clobazam were found to be less likely to discontinue it due to adverse effects as compared to phenytoin (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.65, low-quality evidence). We found no advantage for clobazam over carbamazepine for retention at 12 months in drug-naive children and a slight advantage of clobazam over phenytoin for retention at six months in adolescents and adults with neurocysticercosis in a single clinical trial each. At present, the available evidence is insufficient to inform clinical practice.

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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 18 26%

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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 283,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. 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 283,127 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.