↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for psychotic symptoms concomitant with epilepsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for psychotic symptoms concomitant with epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006118.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saeed Farooq, Akhtar Sherin

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2008.People suffering from epilepsy have an increased risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms. The psychotic syndromes associated with epilepsy have generally been classified as ictal, postictal, and interictal psychosis. Anticonvulsant drugs have been reported to precipitate psychosis. Moreover, all antipsychotic drugs have the propensity to cause paroxysmal electroencephalogram abnormalities and induce seizures. To evaluate the benefits of interventions used to treat clinically significant psychotic symptoms occurring in people with epilepsy with regard to global improvement, changes in mental state, hospitalization, behavior, quality of life, effect on the frequency of seizures, and interaction with antiepileptic drugs. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (23 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), 23 March 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 March 2015), PsycINFO (1887 to 23 March 2015), CINAHL (1937 to 23 March 2015), and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to 23 March 2015).Two review authors (SF and AS) independently inspected the citations identified from the search. We identified potentially relevant abstracts and assessed full papers for inclusion and methodological quality. All randomized controlled trials comparing drugs, behavior therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, or other non-pharmacological interventions used to relieve psychotic symptoms in people with epilepsy. We planned to extract and analyze the data from all relevant studies using standardized methods. As only one study met the inclusion criteria, we attempted no meta-analysis. After independently assessing the abstracts and titles of 618 articles, we selected five relevant abstracts. Ultimately we found only one study meeting the inclusion criteria, which was available only as an abstract. This study compared the use of olanzapine (10 mg/day) with haloperidol (12 mg/day) in 16 people suffering from schizophrenia-like psychosis of epilepsy. Thirteen participants completed the study. Significant improvement was associated with use of olanzapine. We did not identify any study on psychosocial interventions in people suffering from epilepsy and psychosis. We found only one randomized controlled trial, which lacked the power to test the efficacy of antipsychotics in those suffering from psychosis concomitant with epilepsy.Limited evidence from this small randomized controlled trial suggests an improvement in psychotic symptoms, but not other outcome measures, with the use of an antipsychotic. The effects on seizure control are not well studied. Further trials are required to inform practice.

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

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 171 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 24%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Other 37 22%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 37%
Psychology 29 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 33 19%

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 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#8,959,803
of 16,669,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,993
of 11,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,301
of 371,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,669,654 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 11,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. 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 371,391 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.