↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vigabatrin versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Vigabatrin versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008781.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yousheng Xiao, Lu Gan, Jin Wang, Man Luo, Hongye Luo

Abstract

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2012 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1).The efficacy and safety of vigabatrin (VGB) as an add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy have been well established. However, this information needs to be weighed against the risk of development of visual field defects. Whether VGB monotherapy is an effective and safe treatment compared with the standard antiepileptic drug carbamazepine (CBZ) as monotherapy for epilepsy has not been systematically reviewed. To investigate the efficacy and safety of VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy in children and adults. For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3 of 4), MEDLINE (1948 to July 2015), EMBASE (1974 to July 2015) and the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1979 to July 2015). We searched trial registers and contacted the manufacturer of VGB and authors of included studies for additional information. We applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal. Secondary outcomes were time to achieve six-month and 12-month remission after randomisation, time to first seizure after randomisation and adverse events. We presented results as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (time to event data) or as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs (adverse events). Five studies involving a total of 734 participants were eligible for inclusion. We assessed only one study as good quality and the other four as poor quality. However, it was difficult to perform a meta-analysis by extracting aggregate data to synthesise the results as originally planned, mainly because not all studies reported the same outcomes as those chosen for this review. No significant differences favoured VGB or CBZ in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and time to achieve six-month remission after dose stabilisation from randomisation, but results did show a disadvantage for VGB on time to first seizure after randomisation. Compared with CBZ, VGB was associated with more occurrences of weight gain and fewer occurrences of skin rash and drowsiness. No differences in visual field defects and visual disturbances were noted. Data are currently insufficient to address the risk-benefit balance of VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy. Given the high prevalence of visual field defects reported in an existing systematic review of observational studies (Maguire 2010), VGB monotherapy should be prescribed with caution for epilepsy and should not be considered a first-line choice. If necessary, the visual field should be frequently assessed. Future research should focus on investigating the reasons for visual field defects and exploring potential prevention strategies. Moreover, future monotherapy studies of epilepsy should report results according to the recommendations of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission, and methodological quality should be improved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 30%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 17 22%

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 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
#9,501,949
of 17,585,248 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,062
of 11,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,977
of 374,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,585,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 374,174 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.